The recipe for Holy Anointing Oil includes hemp (oil pressed from washed seeds).

Separate but equal doesn't work. You know Brown vs. Board of Education, Apartheid, First amendment. All great reasons why this is the stupidest suggestion ever

The Cthulhu reference didn't tip you off that he isn't serious huh?

The "girl" in my name didn't tip you off that I'm not a guy, huh? :p

Maybe homerooms can segregate out according to what god the kids worship.

RAMEN ;)

Of course they're for smaller government. Shorten the constitution one amendment at a time.

I guess they forgot that whole seperation of church and state. Ya think? Honestly I'm starting to think the Rw's don't think further ahead than their nose.

Let me get this straight

You support forcing employees to pay into Unions but you're against kids reciting a prayer in school

I'm not sure exactly what that says..hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You left out the part where the kids are being forced to recite the prayer, or at the very least, are forced to sit and listen to it (if they get to opt out via their parents note).

The argument was that those who argue for smaller government are actually arguing to stick the government's nose into different businesses.

As for Union vs. Prayer. A union has a practical value. The issue of being forced to pay dues aside, collective bargaining provides a stronger ability to negotiate than individuals having to fend for themselves against their employers. On the other hand, the benefit of schools forcing prayer is questionable at best.

I would wonder how most would react if the prayer being asked for wasn't Christian, but instead for any other religion? Religious freedom isn't the freedom to impose your religion on others. It's being free to not have the government impose a religion onto you. Just because it's the religion you belong to, doesn't mean it's suddenly okay in that case for the government to ignore it's responsibility.

CPS will pick them up.

RE: The Bible says to prey in private

http://www.youtube.com/user/DarkAntics?blend=12&ob=video-mustangbase#p/u/0/tbrYqugVX6U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZynOGhRDkM

Excellent misstep. Probably should be, "pray in private; prey in public!"

haha I didn't catch that! >.< Well obviously I meant "pray"....but....now that you've put the idea into my head ;-)

The GOP platform says "Prey in private pray in public"

Oh I have so many thoughts on this.
1) it isn't fair, and is borderline misleading, to use this picture of that beautiful mosaic which is an iconic image of Notre Dame which implies that the University supports this non-sense. There's nothing "theocratic" about Notre Dame, even if you know some of the jerks who graduated from there who would like their alma mater to be. Having an image that says "Notre Dame" to everyone who sees it next to "This is what theocracy looks like" is completely unfair. Bush league, even. If Fox News did something like this, I'd expect Rachel to hang them out to dry for it.

2) The whole Catholic school system in this country was created in response to the *fact* that the public schools were de facto Protestant religious schools back in the day. It was a response to exactly the type of problem which this bill would create. Catholics created their own schools because they didn't want their kids to be subject to religious indoctrination in school. (Or at least they wanted to control that religious indoctrination.)

3) the whole Obama flap? ND was on the side of the progressives and was firm in its stance in the face of the right-wing freaks. Even if it meant losing donors (they did not. Fund raising has been wildly successful since then.) People then and now have been under some false impression that the whole thing showed ND was some horrible right-wing institution when it was exactly the opposite.

I had no idea that the mosaic was from a specific school, but then I couldn't care less about Notre Dame. Go USC!!!

LOL - I can't imagine you could find more than a few die-hard Southern Cal fans who wouldn't recognize this, just as surely as nearly every Notre Dame fan would recognize Traveler.

Who cares that they used a picture of the mosaic? It's a picture of Jesus, they could have used any picture of Jesus. Who cares? and why care?

@Matt Ryan

I am glad to hear that fundraising is "wildly successful". I am having lunch with my friend tomorrow. I shall be sure to mention it :)

PS: Bad News: I really thought every literate person knew the mosaic. Good News: Laurel77 has now become literate. :)

katy-2846965,

I care because it sullies the reputation of something I hold dear - the school. It is most definitely not just some randomly chosen image of Jesus, as the caption indicates. It's iconic, and everyone who knows it associates it with a very specific institution. And that institution has nothing to do with this bill.

I care because the juxtaposition of this picture directly under "This is what Theocracy looks like" is misleading, unfair, and damaging to the reputation of something that many, many people hold dear. To understand, you might have to think of something you hold dear and imagine it given the same treatment. I'm not asking anyone else to suddenly love Notre Dame. But at least be fair and respect what other people feel.

Every true ND fan knows about that G.D. horse horse of USC's, just like every true USC fan knows about the mosaic "The Word of Life" aka "Touchdown Jesus" that takes up the whole front face of the Hesburgh Library. I think Rachel should take down the picture of this mosaic for the simple fact that Father Ted Hesburgh, the former President of Notre Dame for whom the library is named after, was the leader of an academic movement which drafted the Land O'Lakes statement which insisted upon, "true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical". This is why President Obama was allowed to speak the Commencement even though the Arch Bishop threw a huge tantrum about it. Not to mention Father Ted was the Chairman of The Civil Rights Commission in 1969 as well as instituting coeducation at the University in 1972. I'm sure they are using the Mosaic because NBC has the licensing rights through the football contract with with ND but they're using it with ignorance of what Father Ted and the University stands for.

It doesn't surprise me the State Senator is from Evansville. I live right next to that town and Christianity is very much in your face at every turn. This has no chance of passing but it sure make the Hoosier state look like a bunch of intolerant a-holes ignorant of the US Constitution.

@Matt, why do you hold it dear? I mean, I love Michelangelo's work, but if it was used with the same title, I wouldn't care. It's art, people are free to interpret it as they see fit, and to me it fits the title. It looks like theocracy to me.

Katy, I already answered that above. I care because its an image widely and rightly associated with Notre Dame, and the juxtaposition of the headline and image seem to imply that ND in some way supports theocracy. And I care very much about my school and its reputation.

If there is some part of this that is unclear, please elaborate further. I've not said anything to imply that I'm worried about the reputation of the artist or how people interpret his work. (though now that you mention it, your interpretation is... weird.)

As an ancillary, I'm also worried about the journalistic integrity of TRMS as I'm a huge fan, and this is below them.

In fact, Katy, if you now associate that image with theocracy, you've proven my point that this is damaging to Notre Dame.

Sorry, but I doubt many people know or care that this is from ND. I wouldn't have known if you hadn't said something here. I think you overestimate how much other people who have no relationship to ND know about or care about it! :o)

Occam's razor--maybe Ms. Conaway just thinks it is a pretty cool picture of Jesus.

I think it is kind of funny looking--what's up with everyone sniffing Jesus' armpits? Are they seeing if he is Sure?

For the record, I'm a Boilermaker and derive great pleasure on the (rare) occasions when my alma mater beats ND at anything. But, Matt, I can understand why you are offended. I wouldn't want the Boilermaker Special under the title "This is what sexism looks like" or whatever -ism, -phobia, -ocracy is being discussed. Maybe Laura should peruse the collection here: http://www.freejesuschristwallpapers.com/ and pick out the most benign, least offensive picture. I kind of think the iconic Jesus standing on the globe would be appropriate, but that's just me.

@DEAndy

Thanks for mentioing Father Hesburgh. I did not go to ND, but I have always admired him and got to have lunch with him once at a conference. One of my idols.

Thats the problem they don't think....

Yes, the analysis used by many folks is they don't want their child "exposed to" something they do not believe in, so there is a problem when someone of a different or no faith is "exposed to" something they do not believe in.

I am agog at the whole rationale of being "exposed to" something is going to cause terrible harm. I came from that home of don't talk about that, don't look at this. But they still smoked cigarettes in the house. It was all the glamorous rage then. We also had segregated neighborhoods and schools, then too. I wish I had been exposed to less smoke and more diversity back then.

If a parent (or non-parent for that matter) has strong beliefs and teaches a child something, then it would be the lack of faith, not the exposure that was to blame, right?

It's not really so hard to say some things are just different, that is THEIR WAY and this is OUR WAY, is it?

I don't think they can spend all the hours needed to learn about the various religions, so best to have your own religion be a personal, private thing, not foisted upon the public.

The evangelists want to recruit and convert. We can see it and who will say, not you are crossing this line, we are not oppressing or harming you by not putting your beliefs into the public domain.

"...the whole rationale of being "exposed to" something is going to cause terrible harm..." -- sandyc954

Good Point, Sandy -- not all exposures cause harm, though there have been a few examples in the news this past year (nuclear radiation, superheated steam, pedophile priests) but those are extreme examples. Being exposed, however, to new thoughts and different philosophies is not harmful,

True.

The process of having new thoughts is how the world moves forward.

I think that federal judges needs to apply that concept to laws like this.

You're all kind've missing the point, although I don't mean that rudely. Students who want to pray before class are not barred from doing so legally. Nor are they barred from praying at the end of the day or any other time of day. They are also not barred from praying at events that the school sponsors, like football games. Teachers can also join those prayers as long as it is a student-ran event (volunteered) and not something that the school itself sponsors. Students are also allowed to pray between classes, during lunch, and anywhere on school property as long as their doing so does not create some sort of health hazard (like blocking the hallway). Students may join together in these prayers at any time or do so individually. You are also allowed to carry your Bible w/ you or whatever your particular text is and read from that text and cite that text when writing papers or when learning in the classroom setting. Teachers may also quote from the Bible or whatever holy text as long as they do so in an academic setting. The only rationale that would exist to make the state involve itself in personal behavior as this bill is proposing would be if you wanted the state to selectively endorse said behavior. This same rationale is why we want the state to get involved in marriage equality (to support it) and integration (again to effect social change). The fear associated w/ politics and religion is that historically we have seen that when the state endorses religions it almost always has a negative consequence to the society, as opposed to endorsement of things like marriage equality which have positive consequences to society. This bill is done for the exact opposite reason the people who present it are claiming: it is done in an attempt to force people to conform to particular religious doctrine.

Jeff...is that You????

I'm too tall to be Mutt, but I'm afraid I'm also too heavy to be Jeff.

Thank you for bringing this up, this was my thought exactly.

They ruled that school-led prayer is not legal. Voluntary prayer, when not asked for by the school, is fine. Pray all you want. But when an administrator or teacher begins to lead you in prayer, that...that is not legal.

What? Prayer in schools in an election year in a "red" state? I am shocked! (Not to mention it is Indiania, so they are dumb, too.)

Your statement is not totally accurate. The Supreme court has ruled that instructor led prayer is not legal. It has never said that students can't pray, just that teachers or administrators can't lead prayers.

It is a subtle, but important difference. When those on the right decry the outlawing of prayer in school they always talk about how student's can't pray in school and how that is limiting their free speech and freedom of religious expression rights. The real answer is that students can only not pray in school if that prayer is led by those in authority or is part of an event that is otherwise open to the entire school, such as an assembly or graduation. Students continue to have the right to meet as a group voluntarily to pray or to pray as individuals, even in school.

You are correct that this law would be found illegal under current court rulings.

Actually Craig, I do believe that there was a case brought before a state supreme court (I forget which state) - that said even "student led prayer" in schools wasn't legal. It was several years back, and there was ahowling from the reich, but they didn't move it up the line, don't remember why...Besides outside of "reich-wing" students no one else is going to be in school and say "let US pray" in 1st or 2nd grade.....

Teachers and administrators are not allowed to let students use the classroom to lead students in voluntary prayer. They can pray in separate rooms as part of a Christian group but the students cannot take charge of a class and lead them in prayer.

JustHop, IN went Democrat in 2008

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/2000_2005.html#2008

Not all Hoosiers are "stupid" (though this move comes from the arch-right Republican idiot fringe that is supported by the pervasive Christian fundamentalism characteristic of this region).

This is along the same lines as the book "What is the matter with Kansas". Conservatives have copped the Christian movement to get passionate Christians to vote against their economic best interests. It is all a distraction from the fact that conservatives do not have the right answer to our economic woes. Instead, they fabricate "The War on Christmas", and "The Onset of Sharia Law" to get unemployed, broke, Christians to vote for conservatives. At the end of the day, they may still be unemployed, and broke, but at least they are also still Christian.....

I agree that this is at best a way of posing for those Republican senators, and a waste of time that should be spent on meaningful leadership of our country. Since the legislation is unconstitutional it will go nowhere, and is just peacocking.

Religion is the root of all evil. Evil feeds on ignorance and superstition and where are you going to find more of that than in the Bible? I don't think any of it should be in public schools. Schools should be sticking to the ABCs and not myth and dogma.

The basis of your argument is that religious views are culturally unacceptable.

This is precisely the view that polarizing voices of the Christian right delight in hearing from those on the Left. Here's why.

If your view was dominant, then there would also be no place in the democratic party for devout individuals such as Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama or Ghandhi all of whom represented the best values that democrats fight for. Both Michele and Barack would have to register as republicans. Simply put, your position is political suicide. But I am not asking you to hold your nose. Really I think the intolerance you express is counter to both your and my values that we collectively share as democrats.

I personally am a church every Sunday kind of guy, and every night at dinner 10 family members sit in prayer before an awesome God. Now, the right would have you believe that because I just stated this that I have all sorts of right wing opinions about contraception, Israel, and people's sexual orientation. Actually, I personally doubt many who comment on this site are further left on such issues as I am. Nor do I feel the least bit conflicted about these views. Ditto on questions of science.

It is unfortunate when I hear so many on the left who have bought into the Right wing propaganda that they own the Christian faith- that anyone who professes sincere belief in Christianity must therefore be suspect.

Feels like McCarthyism to me, but I don't take it personally. My brother holds views very similar to yours. If we had about 40 hours you might come to the conclusion that either I was not really religions by your definition or that I am of such a harmless variety that there is no point in further explorations of the foundations both in science and philosophy for my views.

Actually John, the "Founding Fathers" put that whole separation clause in there because they did NOT believe! They thought that "religion" was a "private affair" and should stay in "private"! By today's standards, they would be considered heretics, heathens, et.al - and probably wouldn't even able to "hold public office"!!

Gee, how far have WE sunken!!

John, I don't care what you believe, just leave it out of public schools.

It is unfortunate when I hear so many on the left who have bought into the Right wing propaganda that they own the Christian faith- that anyone who professes sincere belief in Christianity must therefore be suspect.

That's not at all the reason I find religion to be suspect!

Newsblog- if you don't care what religious beliefs I have, then what purpose does it serve to open your argument with the incendiary and divisive premise that religious beliefs are inherently evil? It is not a very practical way to win hearts and minds.

Zora on the contrary I believe you are expressing a street myth that runs counter to the historical record. "Separation between church and state"- the phrase itself is attributed to Jefferson, and though he attempted to reconcile the Enlightenment with his religious beliefs, if you are suggesting he was an atheist, then you are engaging in wishful thinking that he was somehow a closet secular humanist. There is no question he was out of the mainstream of the Christian beliefs of his contemporaries. On the contrary, his work with the Jefferson bible was an expression of a devout theological position that what passed for "Christian" beliefs were in fact atheistic- a position I hold for much different reasons than his. Philosophically, the separation of church and state idea is derived from Locke, but neither was he atheist. He spent a great deal of time pondering the nature of the trinity for example.

Newsblog- if you don't care what religious beliefs I have, then what purpose does it serve to open your argument with the incendiary and divisive premise that religious beliefs are inherently evil? It is not a very practical way to win hearts and minds.

I'm not out to win hearts and minds. I have stated my opinion about religion and that it should not be taught in public schools. What you believe is your problem, don't make it mine.

So, you reserve the right to state your opinion...and to get shirty if anyone states theirs. Nice.

20.7 I don't expect to get my anti- religious opinions voiced in tax payer schools or in public policy and neither should the religious expect to get theirs voiced. How that is shirty is not apparent to me. Nice of you to opine tho.

This is shirty:

What you believe is your problem, don't make it mine.

You expressed your opinion above. Other people expressed theirs in response, which is how these things are supposed to work, but you appear to have taken exception to that.

Take a step back from what you wrote. Forget that you wrote it. Look at it as simply text on a screen. Do you see the problem now?

Hey Jesus genius, if you don't have healthcare, get in horrible accident or disease and have to go to the hospital for weeks or months, who do you think is going to pay for it?

"Jesus is good" - I'm pretty certain that Jesus himself would have supported healthcare for all, not just those who can afford it. At least that is the clear impression I get from the Bible. Seriously, what do you think Jesus would have stood for?

If you want your children to learn to read, write, do math, learn history and science, send them to a school. If you want them to learn about religion, take them to a church! And set the example for them that Jesus gave us, rather than the religious discrimination and hatred your political party demonstrates!

Are you Christian? If so, Jesus told you to pray in secret and not in public. I am only guessing you are Christian.

Sorry, Charlie...you gave up those rights in order to live in this society. And it's a good thing, too. Pray after a judge tells you not too and see how many right s/he can take away. Try to lead a group in prayer that didn't specifically ask you to lead nor pray and see how many civil rights complaints you'd get. Anyone to whom you owe a bill is telling you how to live, with consequences if you don't pay.

Based on your punctuation, you should have spent more time in school learning and less time praying.

I have learned that it is not a good idea to generalize about people or people in certain states. It is too broad a generalization. I learned this a bit later in life, but I try hard not to berate other States. I have people making fun of my state, California all the time and it's just not accurate to lump everyone into some category because of where they live. True, the traditions are different, but this is truly using God to bolster some gay marriage laws or something. I think that practice of using God is even worse than tapping into racist fears, if that were possible. But hey by any means necessary outweighs principles these days, right?

sandy: Yea, let's hear it for the land of fruits and nuts!! :) :)

Bet newblog903 is collecting social security. That description of California is so old and lame.

SaabGuy: old and lame- aw come on anyone who drives a Saab must be old and lame! just kidding Saab.

Ca. is my home state and I love it. And by the way, I drive a BMW- ok just kidding!