Updated 03:46 pm.EST, Mon November 23, 2009

Education|Thu, Jul. 09 2009 04:50 PM EDT

Proposed Policy to Put Religion Back in Iowa Schools

By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter

Public school officials in Spencer, Iowa, have proposed a policy that would offer students elective classes on the Bible and on arguments against the theory of evolution.

Concerned that public education has often "gone too far" in excluding religious influences, the officials are hoping to restore balance to the issues and allow for the inclusion of religious expression in their public school.

"This nation was founded on the idea of religious liberty," the proposal states. "A well rounded education must include an understanding of the ideas which molded the nation, many of which were religious."

If adopted, the school district could offer "The Bible in History and Literature" and "Critic of Darwinism, a scientific approach" electives. But religion in the curriculum is not the only thing the policy is pushing for.

The proposal also states that graduation speeches will not be regulated on religious content and graduating classes will be permitted to choose whether to have prayer at their ceremony or not.

Through the policy, students would also be allowed to distribute religious materials and the school may not forbid student expression solely because of religious content.

For school employees, the policy states that teachers may choose to answer questions about personal faith issues and they must maintain an officially neutral position on religious issues.

Spencer Superintendent Greg Ebeling said any future policies would not serve as a means to force religion on students but rather to help draw lines on what teachers can talk about what they can't, according to KCAU TV.

More often, teachers choose never to address such subjects as faith and religion because of fear of offense or lawsuits, Ebeling noted.

The purposes of the policy, as outlined in the proposal, are to: stop discrimination against private religious expression, educate about and not indoctrinating religious faith, promote dialogue between schools and community concerning faith, create a climate of academic freedom concerning faith issues, and allow for student and employee religious expression within the law.

The proposal adds that in adopting the policy, the school will "neither promote, [nor] disparage religious faith."

According to KCAU TV, the school board will hold an open discussion with the public about the proposed policy.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:33 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    If God wanted religion in schools I'm sure He could figure out a way to do it, don't see how the Board of Education could stymie Him.

  • Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I personally do not believe taking religion out of public schools is the reason for the rise in crime or any other negative statistic. I believe it is a combination of things - such as lack of excellent educational curriculum and lack of parent involvement. I also believe economics has played a severe part in the downturn of our society (i.e. wages and outsourcing) as well as the lack of community group support (be that group a church, school, club, neighborhood etc).

  • DRJ »
    Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    My O my! THis blog has really been busy! I guess that's what happens should anyone suggest that 'respect for God' be added BACK into our public school systems. Of course, only those with the spirit of Satan in them would resist telling boys and girls that God is good and that He has been VERY GOOD to this nation...that is, up 'til the time (1962) the government kicked Him out of the schools!!!
    After that, our society has gone straight to hell. Does any sane person care to argue with the ungodly statistics that have been generated in recent decades concerning our youth?

  • Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:15 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Slacker, follow up
    as regards Students being able to discuss and debate religious issues that is fully permissible under the supreme court rulings beginning with the Tinker case which clarified that students do not lose their constitutional rights at the school house door.
    So students can either informally or in organized clubs etc. discuss and debate religious beliefs in school. What is impermissible (which spencer seems not to get) is for school personnel to engage in that process including sharing their personal views.

  • Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:12 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Slacker,
    Two obvious points. 1st it is quite common for groups to say they intend to do one thing while actually doing a quite different thing. Swallowing what they state is their purpose without examining the content of their actions is naive and certainly not "wise as serpents". If you examine the content of the action it is quite clearly not neutral notwithstanding their assertions to the contrary.
    Second I don't believe I brought the 1st amendment into it. Public school teachers are paid by a governmental agency and are under the authority and direction of that agency on behalf of the government. As such what they communicate to students in their capacity as teachers is as a representative of that agency thus the government. So even if we ignore any 1st amendment issues for them to be presenting their personal religious views to the students would be inappropriate.

  • Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:18 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Isn't it amazing that in 2009, in the country that put a man on the moon 40 years ago Monday, the same country that cracked the atom, that there are folks who deny basic science in favor of complete superstition? And before you start calling me "elitist trash," I say to you I am a huge fan of Jesus the philosopher.

    Some thoughts to chew on: F. Scott Fitzgerald said a sign of true intelligence is the ability to grasp two totally contradictory ideas; and don't forget that at the Scopes'Trial (1925) it was the side arguing against evolution and for creationism that ended up looking like monkeys.

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Slacker: "This is about allowing the students to determine if they want to learn and discuss religion..." Actually that is not what it is about at all. I revert to what the first sentence of the article said: "...arguments against the theory of evolution". At: http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism I found the following about the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling: "The Court found that by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion". hide

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "If the goal were a fair and balanced debate on religion then courses in comparative religion presenting, comparing and contrasting the different belief systems of a wide range of religions and allowing students to explore the "strengths and weaknesses" of these belief systems.

    But that is not what Spencer is trying to do. This is a transparent attempt to cloak religious bias in a veil of supposed neutrality. How can this be anything but neutral when the policy encourages the teachers (official representatives of the Government while in school) to share their personal religious views with the students when asked. "

    Actually that is not what it tries to do at all. I revert to what the article said:

    "The purposes of the policy, as outlined in the proposal, are to: stop discrimination against private religious expression, educate about and not indoctrinating religious faith, promote dialogue between schools and community concerning faith, create a climate of academic freedom concerning faith issues, and allow for student and employee religious expression within the law."

    This is about allowing the students to determine if they want to learn and discuss religion and saying that it is a guise for religious indoctrination is bogus. It is an elective, the students can choose the class or not.

    Also saying that a teacher is a representative of the government is absurd given that the constitution doesn't define the first amendment like that at all. It states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Offering an elective class on religion is not establishing a National religion, it is allowing students to actually do what they are supposed to do and that is learn.

  • Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    slacker you state,

    This has nothing to do with science, this has to do with offering a fair and balanced debate on religion..."

    I agree with the first half of your statement. But the second half does not match the article.

    If the goal were a fair and balanced debate on religion then courses in comparative religion presenting, comparing and contrasting the different belief systems of a wide range of religions and allowing students to explore the "strengths and weaknesses" of these belief systems.

    But that is not what Spencer is trying to do. This is a transparent attempt to cloak religious bias in a veil of supposed neutrality. How can this be anything but neutral when the policy encourages the teachers (official representatives of the Government while in school) to share their personal religious views with the students when asked.

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Slacker: "This has nothing to do with science, this has to do with offering a fair and balanced debate on religion..."

    Judge Jones called a similar action "breathtaking inanity". "

    In response to this, i just revert back to my lemmings comment....

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Slacker,

    Christians make blanket statements that all Muslims are terrorists.

    See how erroneous blanket statements can be?

    Martin Luther was a Christian, right? "

    I consider a christian a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, so not all who say they are christian are in my book following Christ as being a christian is all about. I would say more over your secularist make the blanket statement that "All Muslims are Terrorists" just as you just did, I personally don't consider the few Fringe of either Islam or Christianity to speak for the mass. However I see that you consider anyone who would be considered "Christian" as the root of all evil. So before you go off and make those blanket statements you should pull out your rusty trusty mirror and ask yourself some logical questions...

  • Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Slacker: lemmings are gooooood. :) just kidding. To your comment about reading the founding fathers work, I could not agree more. I particularly like Thomas Paine's work - common sense and rights of man. :)

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Slacker: "This has nothing to do with science, this has to do with offering a fair and balanced debate on religion..." Judge Jones called a similar action "breathtaking inanity". hide

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Slacker,

    Christians make blanket statements that all Muslims are terrorists.

    See how erroneous blanket statements can be?

    Martin Luther was a Christian, right?

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    so instead of placing the blame for the holocaust exactly where it belongs you make a blanket statement that every christian is responsible for the holocaust when in fact by your own admission, that was not so. Good way to stereotype...

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Slacker,

    The Holocaust was made possible by centuries of anti-antisemitism by Christians by both Catholics and Protestants in Europe. Martin Luther wrote a lot of hateful stuff toward the Jews. Its all very well documented- by his own writings. Hitler was able to exploit that tradition of antisemitism to gain support among significant portions of the population of various parts of Europe to carry out crimes against the Jews.

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "seed

    << PLEASE! Please tells us in the last hundred to two hundred years what mass murders have been instituted by Christians.>>

    Holocaust "

    Proof, Please and sources.... because all my research says that Hitler only became a christian during the 90's when Richard Dawkins wanted to sell some books about atheism....

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Apparently the people in charge of these plans are not so good at history. Don't they know what happens when you put anti-science classes in your curriculum? First, you become the laughingstock of the entire world (and rightfully so). Then you waste hundreds of thousands of your school district's dollars losing a lawsuit. These people don't care one bit about science, they just want to scare up a few more Evangelical votes for midterm elections, and they don't care how much damage they do to their children over it."

    This has nothing to do with science, this has to do with offering a fair and balanced debate on religion, oh wait i revert to the lemmings argument....

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Absolutely correct, particularly when you consider that the treaty was read aloud to and approved unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 1797. But I would suggest that you not hold your breath on actually getting a rational response on the 'context' bit. It is when faced with evidence like this that those who continue to trumpet that the U.S. is a 'Christian Nation' are forced into a corner and are left with no other option other than making futile pleas to supposed higher authorities; they parrot what someone else with a degree from somewhere or who is a public speaker said (but who, not surprisingly, also has a stake in keeping the 'Christian Nation' story alive), and ignore the fact that regardless of whom you cite, the treaty's language and approval speak for themselves."

    I would rather read the writings of our founding fathers then determine for myself what the true origins or our nation are. I suggest yall do the same.....

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "If we are going to allow religion in public schools - then elective classes should also be allowed for ANY religious group so kids can elect to hear about Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, or Humanism... etc. if they so choose. "

    Absolutely, let the kids make their own decisions, oh wait that wont work because we want lemmings not thinkers...

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    " know Barton says and writes what you want to hear, but it's lies, and you can find the truth"

    Actually barton has nothing to do wiht it, just read Jefferson's writings for yourself, then you will find the "truth" you seek...

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I want my grandchildren to have a shot at the same reality-based public school experience that I had. Why should it be tempered by classes such as this? If you want to teach your folk myths and fairy tales, you have ample opportunity through home schooling, private xtian schools, and training in your own churches."

    I hope there are changes to Americas public schools, because as it has been for the last 50 years with the increase in drugs, Guns and violence; the kids not being taught useful subjects so that they can compete in todays society, we need useful change becasue the lack of religion has turned our children into violent hatefilled children....

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "My goodness, here we go again! There is one thing I just don't understand about these efforts, and that's simply this: You have, quite properly, absolute control of the religious training of your own children; why the heck do you think you should have control over the religious training of others children?"

    Since when does an elective have anything to do with forcing anyone to do anything...

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Actually, 21st century science, especially evolutionary biology, has shown that Mr. Magical Creator was never necessary for anything. And that is why Christians are so terrified of evolution. That's why the backward Spencer Iowa is trying to legalize lying about science in their schools."

    I can't even figure out a adequate response to the true imbicile in this comment, good job for pointing out true hatred for your fellow man...

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "To Spencer, Iowa (also known as the hick town in the middle of nowhere): The Establishment Clause. Respect it or move to Iran. "

    Since when is Spencer Iowa or as you called it "hick town in the middle of nowhere" Congress as the Constitution lays out....

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To all of you who posted that religion shouldn't be in school I would have you read the following:

    "Concerned that public education has often "gone too far" in excluding religious influences, the officials are hoping to restore balance to the issues and allow for the inclusion of religious expression in their public school."

    This has nothing to do with excluding Science or any of the other twisted theories that will be used to discount this, this has to do with fairness not religion, the classes are electives so the students dont have to take them...

  • Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If we are going to allow religion in public schools - then elective classes should also be allowed for ANY religious group so kids can elect to hear about Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, or Humanism... etc. if they so choose.

  • Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:29 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    'In fact context is irrelevent to the fact that the Treaty of Tripoli states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...".'

    Absolutely correct, particularly when you consider that the treaty was read aloud to and approved unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 1797. But I would suggest that you not hold your breath on actually getting a rational response on the 'context' bit. It is when faced with evidence like this that those who continue to trumpet that the U.S. is a 'Christian Nation' are forced into a corner and are left with no other option other than making futile pleas to supposed higher authorities; they parrot what someone else with a degree from somewhere or who is a public speaker said (but who, not surprisingly, also has a stake in keeping the 'Christian Nation' story alive), and ignore the fact that regardless of whom you cite, the treaty's language and approval speak for themselves.

  • Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:51 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    seed

    << PLEASE! Please tells us in the last hundred to two hundred years what mass murders have been instituted by Christians.>>

    Holocaust

  • Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    I'd like to see how the religious freedom argument would change if the Spencer school board wanted Catholic Catechism offered as an elective.

  • Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:58 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 4

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Apparently the people in charge of these plans are not so good at history. Don't they know what happens when you put anti-science classes in your curriculum? First, you become the laughingstock of the entire world (and rightfully so). Then you waste hundreds of thousands of your school district's dollars losing a lawsuit. These people don't care one bit about science, they just want to scare up a few more Evangelical votes for midterm elections, and they don't care how much damage they do to their children over it. hide

  • Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    rev-

    Obviously you didn't read the article. Continue on in ignorance. You didn't tell me who was involved with the Treaty so this tells me you aren't interested in any true historical discussion on the topic.

    Just keep snort'n; just keep snort'n

    BTW - I have taught history in my younger days - back when Barton wasn't even around. Imagine that:)

  • Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:31 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show rolln4him: "Try reading the rest of the quote and not just the first part. It may actually help in the context of what you read" You have failed to explain what could possibly be important about context. In fact context is irrelevent to the fact that the Treaty of Tripoli states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...". I couldn't find any context saying "oh by the way we were lying out our teeth about not being founded on the Christian religion", so what specific "context" do you think invalidates the statement "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."? Context is important in one regard: you depend entirely on Barton and thus at best your arguments are less honest than his. hide

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:25 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    This is really great news to be reading. For so long we seemed to be losing ground almost on a daily basis, but Americans are starting to angrily respond to those trying to hijack our traditions and legacy. We've got a long way to go, and it will never be perfect on this earth, but we can thank God He's still in charge.

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    revsnortnrocks -

    Try reading the rest of the quote and not just the first part. It may actually help in the context of what you read.

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Philo- Dave Barton is a highly sought after speaker, writer, historian. So you are...what? A liberal, homo, tree hugg'n, pot smoke'n communist trash? What do you know about history? hide

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    LOL! In my own words? So you didn't even read the whole article. Remember, Dave Barton is a highly sought after speaker at universities.

    I place money on the fact that you were fed this line and you're trying to ride it for all it's worth. Real historians don't just take one line and make sweeping conclusions like you and your liberal cronies.

    Tell me. Who are the parties involved in regard to this treaty? Do you even know?

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:38 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Re that Wallbuilders reference: David Barton's book and video are outrageously inaccurate, and filled with so many lies they are easy to dismiss. One way wall of separation indeed! Jefferson never said any such thing. If you want to see the truth, and read quotes in context with good references go here http://pwsoderman.wordpress.com and read "Christian Nation you say?

    I know Barton says and writes what you want to hear, but it's lies, and you can find the truth.

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show rolln4him: "I'll post a link that addresses this issue straight up". Please state in your own words why you think that the text from the Treaty of Tripoli could possibly mean anything other than what it so clearly states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." hide

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    REV;

    Dang! Do you live in a monastery or something. Actually, my computer is just about on the fritz as well and I'm too cheap to upgrade it.

    Secularists and the godless often refer to just what you said, but they also hope against hope that most aren't educated enough to look into it and just take it in without looking into the whole context of the matter.

    But rather than me do a survey like Mr. Forbes, I'll post a link that addresses this issue straight up.

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125

    The gentleman that authors much of the content on this website speaks to law students all across the nation among the most prestigious university the world has to offer and he's astonished at how uneducated these future lawyers are in regard to America's history. In fact, he makes a point that some history text books no longer bother to publish footnotes. Scary!

    I found this to be true while doing my post graduate degree. I challenged my prof on a portion of text and she wasn't able to tell me references. So I called the publisher via email, phone with no luck. The university ditched the text the next year.

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show rolln4him: "I tried to educate you on this last time" I can't view videos on my machine, so what exactly does the video you are trying to get me to watch say about the Treaty of Tripoli? "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." hide

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    There you go again, snort'n rocks, Rev.

    I tried to educate you on this last time, but you are obviously either ignoring the fact or you aren't off of your high. So let me gather those posts again and re-educate you on this issue. Until then, watch this video of Congressman Forbes:

    http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=710d93689e7e2b835734

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show rolln4him: "We are a Christian nation" Not according to the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." hide

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    philo-

    Here's the problem you run into. We all pay taxes for the schools. So if my kid is in the public school that I'm help pay to have, then I should have the right to have classes AVAILABLE for him/her to take that support what we believe. We are a Christian nation, so let's not be ashamed of this and let's EDUCATE him/her on the reasons WHY we're a CHRISTIAN NATION and WHY other country think of us as a CHRISTIAN NATION. If you don't want any religion, then move to a country that supports your belief - like China or North Korea. Russia tried it, but after slaughtering anyone that believes anything other than the STATE, and it didn't work - in fact, more people came to faith. But , hey, go for it.

    You say that if you want to have religious training go to private school, homeschool or whatever. That's a real cool elitist mentality, but not everyone is fortunate enought to be able to afford it-eh? So the rich get a better education and the poor just have to suffer - eh?

    I suppose then, that you support a voucher program. The democrat ladened NEA opposes such measure to have a tax supported voucher program for underprivileged kids to be able to AFFORD private school. Why? Because the NEA is all about indoctrination, power and money. If they support and offer a voucher (which is simply allowing people to get money to HAVE A CHOICE within their education), then the NEA knows everyone will leave the lackluster public school system and FLOOD the Christian or private schools. Why you couldn't have that, now could you? They need their little robots to indoctrinate liberal trash.

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Upon reflection (always a good thing) there are a couple of positives here. If teachers can discuss personal beliefs, of course if they have none, they will be equally as free to discuss why. and all of these other "freedoms" are equally double-edged swords. If evolution teaching is strengthened, and it should be as it is a joke now, and perhaps if there was a course that would teach the true origins of the bible and Christianity as they are taught in seminaries, I would have no problem whatsoever with that.

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:15 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

    My goodness, here we go again! There is one thing I just don't understand about these efforts, and that's simply this: You have, quite properly, absolute control of the religious training of your own children; why the heck do you think you should have control over the religious training of others children?

    I want my grandchildren to have a shot at the same reality-based public school experience that I had. Why should it be tempered by classes such as this? If you want to teach your folk myths and fairy tales, you have ample opportunity through home schooling, private xtian schools, and training in your own churches.

    I hope American's United and the other secular organizations push back, and push back hard on this.

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "You're into witchcraft? Whoa. I hear it's one of the fastest growing beliefs going today. There's been huge sale increases of brooms at our local stores, so ..."

    Actually Rollin' I'm a modern witch, I fly on a vacuum cleaner. :) Brooms are so 20th century.

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dipbeliever -

    You're into witchcraft? Whoa. I hear it's one of the fastest growing beliefs going today. There's been huge sale increases of brooms at our local stores, so ...

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "Religion allows us to fly into heaven and around after that with the Holy Angels. "

    Exactly, just as witchcraft allows us to fly around the house (sometimes we're just too tired to walk) or turn our son-in-law into an artichoke if he gets too lippy. :-)

  • Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    cryterion -

    You big baby. What's wrong with some opposing view?

    I'm not going to go into detail of how and why America is a CHRISTIAN NATION, but you can watch this video of one of our elected Congressman goes to town on this:

    http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=710d93689e7e2b835734

    You're scare tactics of theocracy is just that - scare tactics. Stop your whining.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a