See You at the Pole (nationwide, students will pray Weds. at public school flagpole gatherings)

See You at the Pole web site ^

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

See You at the Pole™ is a student-initiated, student organized, and student-led event. That means this is all about students meeting at their school flagpole to pray—for their school, friends teachers, government, and their nation. See You at the Pole™ is not a demonstration, political rally, nor a stand for or against anything.

See You at the Pole™ is scheduled annually on the fourth Wednesday in September, which is September 26 in 2007. The suggested starting time is 7 a.m. If that doesn't work for your school, choose a time that will work for your school, but let everyone at your school know!

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Reportedly, millions of students have participated in recent events.

If you hear about this too late to act on it for 9/26/07, find another date and time. Please pass this on to parents and students. There are follow-up ideas on the site.

There are also some very good FREEDOM OF RELIGION legal resources on the site. (See the Students' Rights link.)

[LibWhacker]

I love it!!! God, the flag, and public school kids all together in one place. Must drive the libs bonkers. How many lawsuits have they filed?

[governmentstillsucks]

If you hear about this too late to act on it for 9/26/07, find another date and time. Please pass this on to parents and students. There are follow-up ideas on the site.

I'm glad to see "See You at the Pole" becoming an annual tradition. Regular Jay Sekulow listeners remember when this was just a protest, if you will.

[governmentstillsucks]

I love it!!! God, the flag, and public school kids all together in one place. Must drive the libs bonkers. How many lawsuits have they filed?

None that I know of--but check out the Commie chagrin on CommonDreams.org:

Pat Robertson Attorney Promoting Inaccurate View...

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Lots of related articles keyworded under SYATP and SCHOOLPRAYER and elsewhere, see the Keyword section just above Post #1.

OR, just click here:

Articles indexed to SYATP
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=syatp

Articles indexed to schoolprayer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=schoolprayer

[governmentstillsucks]

Thanks for the links! It’s an issue that I hold very dear.

[do the dhue]

I love it too.

A prayer does not establish a religion. A Manger Scene or the Ten Commandments on public property does not establish a religion. Only Congress has the power to establish a religion by telling us we all have to attend the Glory Bound Bible Thumpin' Church every Sunday. But tell someone they can not pray or put up the Ten Commandments up as a display prohibits the free exercise of religion.

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 of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Grammy]

I find it just fascinating that tomorrow the kids in our district are off for a parent/teacher conference day.

Just a coinky dink, right?

[governmentstillsucks]

A prayer does not establish a religion. A Manger Scene or the Ten Commandments on public property does not establish a religion. Only Congress has the power to establish a religion by telling us we all have to attend the Glory Bound Bible Thumpin' Church every Sunday. But tell someone they can not pray or put up the Ten Commandments up as a display prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I don't know. A few years back, I passed by a publicly displayed Star of David and suddenly developed this craving for knish. Get me an ACLU attorney, pronto!

In all seriousness, we have a lot more constitutional standing on this matter than we think.

[Kitten1]

This is awesome and very interesting. I hadn’t heard of this as an annual event.

When I lived in the western suburbs of IL, my daughter and many of her classmates did this at their high school—twice a month—6:45am prayer around the flagpole since 9/11. She was a freshmen when the attacks of September 11 happened. This went on until she graduated. I’m not sure if they still do—but they probably do. I’m so proud our young people.

[AppyPappy]

I always hear about this too late

[donnab]

My son just told me that he knew about this and that his school actually made the announcement on their morning TV with upcoming events. Frankly I am surprised but very pleased.

[governmentstillsucks]

My son just told me that he knew about this and that his school actually made the announcement on their morning TV with upcoming events. Frankly I am surprised but very pleased.

Government schools--who'd a thunk it? In some places, the people still have more power than the federally distributed taxpayer dollar and the NEA.

[do the dhue]

LOL and back to seriousness, I believe you are correct. The other side has to go to a court ruling from the 1800s. We have the constitution. I went to Jefferson’s Memorial. I was surprised at how many times I read the words God or Creator. I think it is clear what Jefferson wanted. He did not want the Government in the affairs of the Church.

[governmentstillsucks]

LOL and back to seriousness, I believe you are correct. The other side has to go to a court ruling from the 1800s. We have the constitution. I went to Jefferson’s Memorial. I was surprised at how many times I read the words God or Creator. I think it is clear what Jefferson wanted. He did not want the Government in the affairs of the Church.

Funny that you mention Thomas Jefferson. You're familiar with the Jefferson Bible, correct? It is usually used by atheist secularists as a thorn in the side of this idea of the United States of America being founded upon Reformed Christian ideas and the basic tenets of the Bible. Jefferson, in fact, used the earliest "red letter version," if you will: he focused upon the actual words of Jesus Christ and pointed towards the moral excellency of them, rather than discount all of the miracle stories, as is claimed by later Enlightenment-based commentators.

Jefferson wanted to get at the core of Jesus's teachings, because he found them to be superior to all others. His colleagues were in agreement.

Do a little legal research--I'd recommend Westlaw, as a start, if you can access it. If not, there are plenty of resources available through the ACLJ and Rutherford Institute. You'll see that public displays of faith on government property aren't nearly as verboten as some would assume.

[gracesdad]

I know this is going to sound too weird to many, but the ACLU has always said something like this is perfectly legal and fine. Religious activities, clubs etc, as long as it’s during non-academic time.

[governmentstillsucks]

I know this is going to sound too weird to many, but the ACLU has always said something like this is perfectly legal and fine. Religious activities, clubs etc, as long as it’s during non-academic time.

It isn't that weird, which is how I know that God has a very good sense of humor. The Commie-founded, Commie-operated, and predominantly Commie-staffed ACLU has by and large found itself on the right side of this issue, with regard to government schools. The right to non-academic religious clubs and gatherings is constitutional, provided that it doesn't interfere with regular class time and is not under the aegis of the staff, administrators or district officials.

[do the dhue]

That was a great post. I learned a lot. No, I had not heard of the Jefferson Bible. I think I might have all the socialist/commie Bastards a little apprehensive about bringing up any of their atheist, commie, psycho liberal babbling thorns to me. I love Jefferson too. I can tell by his writings that he knew who God was. I guess I am happy with this view and don’t wish for it to be tainted.

[governmentstillsucks]

That was a great post. I learned a lot. No, I had not heard of the Jefferson Bible. I think I might have all the socialist/commie Bastards a little apprehensive about bringing up any of their atheist, commie, psycho liberal babbling thorns to me. I love Jefferson too. I can tell by his writings that he knew who God was. I guess I am happy with this view and don’t wish for it to be tainted.

Tom Jefferson was hardly a deist in the way we define the term today. In fact, the so-called Deist founding father was quite active in the Anglican Church! He did, later in life, take some of the French philosophes ideas to heart, though I don't think he was ever a real secularist or skeptic when it came to basic Judeo-Christian philosophy of ethics and/or morality.

[do the dhue]

What do you know about this?

I have an understanding that Washington prayed an hour before bedtime and an hour when he woke up.

I also think that the Founding Fathers knew that man is a sinner and to much power in the hands of the few was bad for the people. So, they created a division in powers and a checks and balance system.

I also believe that our forefathers wanted us to have inalienable rights (or God given rights) so that no man or Government could take away our God given rights. I believe that the commies in our Country today wish to remove that idea for their purpose. What is their purpose? Well, I am an American and I pray to my God and we solve my problems together. Remove God and I end up praying to the Government to take care of me from the cradle to the grave.

And if they did not believe in Jesus, why did they end the Constitution with In the year of the Lord, 1787?

Think these are loco beliefs?

[joebuck]

"A prayer does not establish a religion."

Religion should not be part of the analysis at all. The term used originally was "separation of church and state" came from a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist college to assure them the first amendment would prohibit a national church like in England at the time. The libs have tried to pervert this as being a separation of "religion" or "faith" and state which was never, ever, contemplated by the drafters of the Constitution.

[do the dhue]

Yes, the court in the 1800 used the letter from Jefferson and this is where the commies take their stand. They do not take it from the Constitution itself. And I believe that the letter is even taken out of context.

Now, I do not think that we set up a theocracy, but we did set it up so the Government could not tell the Church what to do. And they set it up so Religion was not restricted. I think when you keep someone from praying you are prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[do the dhue]

Hey Joe,

I grew up outside of Fort Wayne.

[joebuck]

Born and raised in Indy myself

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Brad’s Gramma]

Good Stuff BUMP!!!!!!

[governmentstillsucks]

I have an understanding that Washington prayed an hour before bedtime and an hour when he woke up.

It was our first and--in my mind--greatest president that issued and signed the proclamation of the "Day of Publick Thanksgiving and Prayer," true to the earlier Reformed Protestant colonists. He included in that statement that we should, "...[acknowledge] with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." Washington was a man who did not take prayer or the Providence of God lightly, despite what some college PoliSci and History professors would like to believe--and then suggest to highly hormonal teenagers who don't know any better.

You'll enjoy this: Not too long--a few years--after Washington's prayer proclamation did John Adams make a far more urgent and religiously-themed statement, with references to humiliation, fasting and prayer. But they were predominantly secular Deists, you understand. ;)

I also think that the Founding Fathers knew that man is a sinner and to much power in the hands of the few was bad for the people. So, they created a division in powers and a checks and balance system.

Coming from a Protestant and thoroughly Calvinistic (or Reformed) background, it makes perfect sense. Contrast this with Communism, which is inherently atheistic.

I also believe that our forefathers wanted us to have inalienable rights (or God given rights) so that no man or Government could take away our God given rights. I believe that the commies in our Country today wish to remove that idea for their purpose. What is their purpose? Well, I am an American and I pray to my God and we solve my problems together. Remove God and I end up praying to the Government to take care of me from the cradle to the grave.

Even a cynic could understand the appeal of God-given rights. It takes a cynic and a strategist to devise a way to get around the concept, and here the real divide becomes clear: Absolute, God-given rights vs. atheistic, mutable, man-made systems.

[governmentstillsucks]

Yes, the court in the 1800 used the letter from Jefferson and this is where the commies take their stand. They do not take it from the Constitution itself. And I believe that the letter is even taken out of context.

No...The former Klansman and Supreme Court Justice, Hugo Black (an FDR nominee), was the first to cite Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association with regard to a legal "separation of Church and State." True, James Madison himself did write about a separation of church and state, the Court did rule in favor of the Roman Catholic Church in Bradfield v. Roberts. I don't think Madison's concept of separation is in line with the ACLU's. This is where common sense and idiocy part ways forever.

Now, I do not think that we set up a theocracy, but we did set it up so the Government could not tell the Church what to do. And they set it up so Religion was not restricted. I think when you keep someone from praying you are prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Jefferson's remarks to the Danbury Baptists were aimed at more theocratic elements in state governments, particularly Connecticut, which was largely Congregationalist. Many have read the famous and infamous 1802 Danbury letter, but do they know what inspired Jefferson's response?

Madison and Jefferson were both correct in fearing a state-church merger, or a "religious test," as could be found in some state governments. They, and the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1899, did not have in mind excluding all displays of religion on government property, so much as they worried about the financial assistance, and apparent endorsement, of one sect above all others.

[governmentstillsucks]

“Roman Catholic hospital” in place of “Roman Catholic Church.”

[do the dhue]

Thanks for another great post. I guess I think it is great because I see it your way. Our Founding Fathers were not deist or atheist. And you would think that if you were atheist that you would still want God given rights and not man given rights.

I also have another thing to add: As I mentioned, I believe it to be true that Washington prayed an hour before and after bed time. IF a man is a deist (one who believes God created the universe but does not control or effect it), then why would a person pray? What would they pray for? I call myself a Christian and I don’t spend that much time praying. Well, why would a deist pray to a God who does not control the universe two hours every day? There is no way our Founding Fathers were deist or atheist.

And it just hit me, why would atheist or deist ensure that there was inalienable (God given) rights? Deist don't believe God does not control the universe and atheist don't believe in a God at all.

[do the dhue]

Deist don't believe God does not control the universe and atheist don't believe in a God at all.

My bad, shoulda said:
Deist believe God does not control the universe and atheist don't believe in a God at all.

[governmentstillsucks]

I also have another thing to add: As I mentioned, I believe it to be true that Washington prayed an hour before and after bed time. IF a man is a deist (one who believes God created the universe but does not control or effect it), then why would a person pray? What would they pray for? I call myself a Christian and I don’t spend that much time praying. Well, why would a deist pray to a God who does not control the universe two hours every day? There is no way our Founding Fathers were deist or atheist.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, a Deist in the historical context of the Revolutionary War period is not the same as today's deist, which holds something called "God" basically as a cosmological place marker. Have you read David McCullough's, "1776?" Pretending I don't know what I do, McCullough's fairly well-researched and accurate portrayal of General George Washington doesn't strike me as that of a relatively noncommittal deist.

And it just hit me, why would atheist or deist ensure that there was inalienable (God given) rights? Deist don't believe God does not control the universe and atheist don't believe in a God at all.

You are correct: there is no point in prayer for a deist; and on a deeper level, if God does is not capable of intervening in the most fundamental natural processes, what good is prayer?

You've brought to mind an old joke that a very white and very American Buddhist guru told me years ago: He said that I shouldn't worry how badly I pray or meditate, because no one's listening anyway.

[do the dhue]

Thanks for the correction. (that is one of the reason I like FR, you get corrected and that is a good thing) I was thinkging Danbury was efferenced during the debate in 1800s.

And I concur with this:

did not have in mind excluding all displays of religion on government property, so much as they worried about the financial assistance, and apparent endorsement, of one sect above all others.

Allow me to go here. The below is from the Danbury letter:

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.

In the letter Jefferson is talking about the 1st Amendment. As a Christian, I believe that the first gift God gave man is free will. Who I am and who is the Government to come up to any individual and tell them they have to attend the Glory Bound Bible Thumping Church every Sunday. I think our Natural Rights could be free will. A Government that would establish a religion would also remove man's free will. Reading to much into it?

[do the dhue]

You've brought to mind an old joke that a very white and very American Buddhist guru told me years ago: He said that I shouldn't worry how badly I pray or meditate, because no one's listening anyway.

And I have a joke for him. If he is right, I am willing to pay for it. If I am right, he is going to hear about it.

OK, it aint that funny. I'll work on it. :-)

[governmentstillsucks]

A Government that would establish a religion would also remove man's free will. Reading to much into it?

No, not at all. Imagine Christians living in Nero's Rome. The government--albeit, an autocratic one--found it necessary to use those believers as human torches and scapegoats. This is a government not establishing a religion, but condemning minority sects.

A better example of government establishing religion would be The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Enough said, right?

[do the dhue]

A better example of government establishing religion would be The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Enough said, right? Yep, theocracy

[eyedigress]

Most of my paperwork up until the 90's ended with "In the Year of our Lord" You are right, the Constitution limits Government, not people. I wish folks would realize that.

[do the dhue]

I wish folks would realize that.

HEAR HEAR!! It shouldn't even be debated.

[governmentstillsucks]

Yep, theocracy.

Which isn't to say that we were all wrong under the Holy Roman Empire--but you'll be hard-pressed to find a notion of a democratic federal republic in those days. Theocracy might be appealing, but as you noted in an earlier post, we're dealing with sinners, regardless of how powerful they are. The Fall was, and is, the great equalizer, which I believe is behind our distinctly anti-government American Creed, to paraphrase Samuel Huntington.

[governmentstillsucks]

Most of my paperwork up until the 90's ended with "In the Year of our Lord" You are right, the Constitution limits Government, not people.

What's key is understanding the differences between rights and liberties.

[do the dhue]

The Fall was, and is, the great equalizer, which I believe is behind our distinctly anti-government American Creed, to paraphrase Samuel Huntington.

That is interesting. It took me a while to digest. And this is what I came to: are you and Sam saying that our Fore Fathers were anti Government (less power in the hands of the few and checked and balanced), in order to preserve the Constitution and those it governs?

[governmentstillsucks]

That is interesting. It took me a while to digest. And this is what I came to: are you and Sam saying that our Fore Fathers were anti Government (less power in the hands of the few and checked and balanced), in order to preserve the Constitution and those it governs?

Our creed has historically been anti-government, but not in the anarchistic sense. He who governs least, I suppose. In a climate made up of fear of tyrannical despotism and philosophically Calvinist leanings with regard to man and civil authority--not to mention other influences--I think the idea of limiting government was inevitable.

It is very hard for me to imagine Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, et al, getting behind a bureaucratic juggernaut like we have today, which very well may bring us Soviet-style health care and an even greater loss of freedom than decades past.

[governmentstillsucks]

I need to add this:

Not everyone was on board when it came to the Constitution that we have today. If you're familiar with the Federalist/Anti-Federalist controversy from 1787-89, I'm probably reciting some very old news here.

[do the dhue]

I think you are right about Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, and others. I think they wanted the power for day to day Government to be in the hands of the State and the Fed was to protect us from an outside threat, maintain the peace, and maintain a level playing field. That was about all the Responsibility that they gave they Feds. The rest was to be left to the State. So, I don’t think they would like the size of the Federal Government today.

[governmentstillsucks]

So, I don’t think they would like the size of the Federal Government today.

I don't like the size of the federal government today, and I am half the man the any of them were! Today's megastate would be called tyranny in the early days of the American republic.

[do the dhue]

I don't like the size of the Government too but I also have mixed feelings. Please do not take me wrong here. I hate the actual size of the Government. I know we have tons of fat that needs to be lost. I also think like this though: some bureaucracy may need to exist. For an instance, what would happen if we had 52 Food and Drug Administrations. Maybe it would be be better, but I am sure that it would not be a level playing field for all States. I could see a Federal Highway Department (or Transportation) that would maintain our Federal Highways (which I love). Does each State need a NASA? I don’t think so. And all I am saying in this post is that there could be Departments worth keeping besides the Defense Department. But we do need to get rid of the Department of Redundancy Departments on a Federal level and remove the fat in the ones we keep..

[governmentstillsucks]

I don't like the size of the Government too but I also have mixed feelings. Please do not take me wrong here. I hate the actual size of the Government. I know we have tons of fat that needs to be lost. I also think like this though: some bureaucracy may need to exist. For an instance, what would happen if we had 52 Food and Drug Administrations. Maybe it would be be better, but I am sure that it would not be a level playing field for all States.

And you raise a very good question: Just who should be in charge? Interstate commerce is the business of the federal government--so what happens when one state exports products that don't match the standards of the importer?

I could see a Federal Highway Department (or Transportation) that would maintain our Federal Highways (which I love). Does each State need a NASA? I don’t think so. And all I am saying in this post is that there could be Departments worth keeping besides the Defense Department. But we do need to get rid of the Department of Redundancy Departments on a Federal level and remove the fat in the ones we keep

In all of this, I think it's important to consider the scope and control given to a federal government. For example, the Department of Education must go. Before it was a department, it was called the Office of Education--but why should we allow either? Why is it that the government is best suited to act as a benevolent dictator in so many aspects of our lives? Can't each individual state handle education, abortion, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms regulations--just to name a handful of issues? And that isn't without considering preexisting federal laws, which do trump any state legislature that rules to the contrary, provided that their Supreme Court doesn't strike that law down in a heartbeat.

I agree with you about NASA, because I shudder to think what some of the bottom-five literacy states might produce.

[do the dhue]

I agree with you about NASA, because I shudder to think what some of the bottom-five literacy states might produce.

LOL - got what they would produce right here:

I concur that the Department of Education must go. Folks home school their kids and they turn out smarter then some (and I am being nice) of the public school students.

I think the scope should be the original responsibilities given to the Government by our Founding Fathers: defend us from and outside threat (Defense Department and Intel), maintain the peace (DOJ is acceptable and I think an FBI is acceptable), and maintain a level playing field. Maintaining a level playing field would include a commerce department, highway department, maybe a FDA, maybe an EPA (although, I would rather see them in the same category as education), Treasury, Veterans Affair, and State is needed

I have questions here:
Now, what does the Dep of Ag do? Why can't each state handle this? Labor and Energy? What do these guys do to maintain a level playing field?

What does the Department of Interior do? I think Dept Housing Urban Development and Health Services should be left to the State.

And the DEA? Are they worth all the money?

I think these are debatable, but I would have to see what some of these departments actually do before I can determine if they help maintain a level playing field for all States and people.

I wish it were this easy too. :-)