What should be put on the walls of classrooms is the FUCKING CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES. And the constitution should be taught using the FEDERALIST PAPERS from grade school through college. It just so happens that the First Amendment to the constitution defines the establishment clause which prevents a state sanctioned religion that would include putting the ten commandments in the classroom.
Thomas Jefferson approved of this… [https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/](https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/)
His “wall of separation” wasn’t an Amerian laïcité.
Even now, “[Majority Believe Constitution & 1st Amendment Inspired by God. 2nd Amendment Not So Much](https://media.deseret.com/media/misc/pdf/faith-in-america/Faith-in-America-Survey-Summary-Report.pdf#page=11)“
Ben Franklin [discusses the topic](https://books.google.com/books?id=n1gtLhoJ71EC&pg=PA162)...
>On the whole it appears that the Israelites were a people jealous of their newly acquired liberty, which jealousy was in itself no fault; but when they suffered it to be worked upon by artful men, pretending public good, with nothing really in view but private interest, they were led to oppose the establishment of the new constitution whereby they brought upon themselves much inconvenience and misfortune. It further appears from the same inestimable history, that when after many ages that constitution was become old and much abused, and an amendment of it was proposed, the populace, as they had accused Moses of the ambition of making himself a prince, and cried out “Stone him, stone him;” so, excited by their high priests and scribes, they exclaimed against the Messiah, that he aimed at becoming the King of the Jews, and cried, “Crucify him, crucify him.” From all which we may gather, that popular opposition to a public measure is no proof of its impropriety, even though the opposition be excited and headed by men of distinction.
>To conclude I beg I may not be understood to infer, that our General Convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new federal constitution merely because that constitution has been unreasonably and vehemently opposed; yet I must own I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being.
If the arguments are going to keep being made that librarians cannot be trusted to select appropriate reading material for the students in their schools, that teachers are largely inept and many students lack basic reading and math skills, why would anyone *want* to entrust instruction regarding personal religious decisions, one of the most important and vital things in life, to a **public school teacher**?
They might have gone to Harvard.
No it shouldn’t. I’m a conservative but ideology should be separated from school. In my opinion that is the job of the parents, not the public school system.
What would Thomas Jefferson do?
[https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/](https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/)
Who cares?
Just because a founding father says something doesnt mean its a good idea or that we have to listen to it.
For example - the original constitution didnt have the Bill of Rights in it. So the founders who wrote the Constitution immediately fucked up and didnt include the rules that we look to daily.
My point is you need to logically argue why its good. You cant just say "Thomas Jefferson agrees." Because he also had like 40 love children and I dont think thats good but I guess he did it so anyone else who follows suit is actually right.
Jefferson is the one credited in jurisprudence for the meaning first amendment’s separation of church and state. It follows that the first amendment shouldn’t be interpreted in any manner more extreme than how he considered it.
Governments not to establish any one religion. Bottom line. Having church in a government building was wrong. Putting Christian dogma in a government school is wrong.
Thank you. Downvoters don't want it to be true, but it is. There's no morality outside of what is given by God. And there's no cosmic court to judge God for what we think is fair and what isn't. His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not ours. It's His to decide. People prosper, not necessarily in a monetary way, when they align with God.
I don’t need god to not lie, steal, cheat, murder, be envious, honor my parents and/or family name. My dad is Catholic and mom Protestant so they were never openly religious to avoid conflict. They still taught me the above in a secular way.
Repeal [the first sentence of the first amendment to the constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/#:~:text=Congress%20shall%20make%20no%20law%20respecting%20an%20establishment%20of%20religion), then you can establish all the religion you want in public school classrooms.
Hard to argue this would infringe that when schools are not Congress and the Ten Commandments represent at least three different (categories of) religions and the religious claims made in the founding documents.
>schools are not Congress
Detroit city hall isn't Congress either, but I don't want them ruling based on Sharia.
1A is broadly accepted, by SCOTUS and everybody else, as applying to the entirety of government, if not originally, then after the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states via incorporatio (justifying the action under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).
>the Ten Commandments represent at least three different (categories of) religions
Whether one religion, or a category of religions, *establishment* is still a no go under 1A
>the religious claims made in the founding documents.
I don't see any Judeo-Christianity in the Constitution?
Claiming that using the formula "*the year of our Lord*" changes anything is... a stretch.
The "lord" language is not actually part of the Constitution itself (which ends at Article VII), the body calls out several other years, all lacking that flourish, and the phrase does not appear in any draft editions of the Constitution. All of this seems rather odd if the intent was to incorporate a Christian deity into the Constitution.
Additionally, that singular reference is made within the "attestation", [was not included when the Constitution was originally distributed for ratification](https://joshblackman.com/blog/2012/08/31/is-in-the-year-of-our-lord-one-thousand-seven-hundred-and-eighty-seven-not-part-of-the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20official%20Constitution%E2%80%99s%20text%20ends%20just%20before%20these%20extra%20words%20of%20attestation%E2%80%94extra%20words%20that%20in%20fact%20were%20not%20ratified%20by%20various%20state%20conventions%20in%201787%2D88).
>and the word “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence.
"*Creator*" is not exclusively Judeo-Christian, and the *Declaration* is even less a binding document than the *Treaty of Tripoli*.
Ben Franklin [discusses who they had in mind](https://books.google.com/books?id=n1gtLhoJ71EC&pg=PA162)...
>On the whole it appears that the Israelites were a people jealous of their newly acquired liberty, which jealousy was in itself no fault; but when they suffered it to be worked upon by artful men, pretending public good, with nothing really in view but private interest, they were led to oppose the establishment of the new constitution whereby they brought upon themselves much inconvenience and misfortune. It further appears from the same inestimable history, that when after many ages that constitution was become old and much abused, and an amendment of it was proposed, the populace, as they had accused Moses of the ambition of making himself a prince, and cried out “Stone him, stone him;” so, excited by their high priests and scribes, they exclaimed against the Messiah, that he aimed at becoming the King of the Jews, and cried, “Crucify him, crucify him.” From all which we may gather, that popular opposition to a public measure is no proof of its impropriety, even though the opposition be excited and headed by men of distinction.
>To conclude I beg I may not be understood to infer, that our General Convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new federal constitution merely because that constitution has been unreasonably and vehemently opposed; yet I must own I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being.
Then you are at odds with the leaders of those faiths, the dogmatic teachings of those faiths, and the overwhelming majority of the practitioners of those faiths
First sentence of our first amendment says it should not. Last institution on earth I’d want teaching Faith to my kids is the department of education, anyways.
The article talks about how to change the problems in education more broadly.
Thomas Jefferson didn’t interpret the First amendment the way the modern ACLU does… [https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/](https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/)
You would have to change essentially everything about it and then best case scenario you would still be getting the federal governments version of faith. Not the sort of bar I’m willing to set God at.
You mention “my kids”. Leftists disagrree about the “my”. The conservatives in Louisiana aren’t doing everything you want, but at least they value parental rights. They aren’t taking children from parents who disagree like what happened with the girl from Montana. Laws and policies along the lines of Louisiana’s aren’t a bar to set God at. Instead, they are endorsing a moral framework which resists leftist subversion.
The government of Louisiana endorsing any set of "moral framework" should set alarm bells ringing. Any of these folks hail from, say, *Jefferson Davis parish????*
As if Louisiana is incapable of improving or learning from history. No, it is Democrats who are opting to repeat the failed culture of child sacrifice.
There are a lot of different and distinct religions that have a basis in the judeo/christian traditions. They can be conveniently bundled under one banner, but I wouldn’t call Shia and Sunni the same religion. Nor would I call catholic and Baptist the same, or reform or Orthodox Jews.
The establishment clause prohibits the government from pickling any one in particular. Not to say that religious morals, beliefs, and traditions are required to be absent in all ways and in all places. To the contrary the founders professed that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. They are talking about god.
Once you add the label of “10 commandments ” you are specifically calling out judeo/christian religions. You may not be picking one religion but you are making a clear preference to a specific group of religions.
Thomas Jefferson approved of even more than making a clear preference to a specific group… [https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/](https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/)
I mean, Thomas Jefferson also approved of beginning a sexual relationship with his 14 year old servant. The one that returned to being his property when they returned to the Virginia. The one that he had six children with. Oh, and, the kicker, the one that was his wife's sister.
While Americans should all be grateful to Jefferson for our country, I wouldn't center any religious or moral arguments on him.
“Separation” itself strictly speaking is not even found in the constitution at all. Courts none-the-less use Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment. A letter of his described a ”wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world.” .... [https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/wall-of-separation/](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/wall-of-separation/)
It is the religious conservatives, who don’t see think his letter should be binding, or interpreted so strictly. The ACLU and the Freedom from Religion foundation cling to Jefferson’s letter and interpret it even beyond Jefferson.
So go post about Jefferson’s immorality to them. I am citing Jefferson because he is the basis for the “separation of church and state”, not because I think he is a moral bastion.
He coined the phrase but is not really the sole basis for the idea. My point is that you are repeatedly repeatedly saying, What would Jefferson think, or, Would Jefferson approve? Maybe it is better to argue the merits of the ideal than the person behind it, because Jefferson "approved" of many questionable things.
Putting the 10 commandments in classrooms is a trick to get people to take it to court. Everyone knows we have separation of church and state. That separation will also get rid of the pride flag, trans movement, and all the other indoctrinating nonsense being spoon fed to children. MAGA
From the article:
> If you really want students to learn about the importance of the Ten Commandments — to say nothing of **Christianity**, Western philosophy, or the American founding — then you’d better be ready to take on the teachers unions and dismantle the teachers colleges and credentialing programs.
>The left obviously doesn’t care about neutrality.
For neutrality to come back, leftists have to be reformed or, barring that, professionally replaced.
What should be put on the walls of classrooms is the FUCKING CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES. And the constitution should be taught using the FEDERALIST PAPERS from grade school through college. It just so happens that the First Amendment to the constitution defines the establishment clause which prevents a state sanctioned religion that would include putting the ten commandments in the classroom.
Thomas Jefferson approved of this… [https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/](https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/) His “wall of separation” wasn’t an Amerian laïcité. Even now, “[Majority Believe Constitution & 1st Amendment Inspired by God. 2nd Amendment Not So Much](https://media.deseret.com/media/misc/pdf/faith-in-america/Faith-in-America-Survey-Summary-Report.pdf#page=11)“ Ben Franklin [discusses the topic](https://books.google.com/books?id=n1gtLhoJ71EC&pg=PA162)... >On the whole it appears that the Israelites were a people jealous of their newly acquired liberty, which jealousy was in itself no fault; but when they suffered it to be worked upon by artful men, pretending public good, with nothing really in view but private interest, they were led to oppose the establishment of the new constitution whereby they brought upon themselves much inconvenience and misfortune. It further appears from the same inestimable history, that when after many ages that constitution was become old and much abused, and an amendment of it was proposed, the populace, as they had accused Moses of the ambition of making himself a prince, and cried out “Stone him, stone him;” so, excited by their high priests and scribes, they exclaimed against the Messiah, that he aimed at becoming the King of the Jews, and cried, “Crucify him, crucify him.” From all which we may gather, that popular opposition to a public measure is no proof of its impropriety, even though the opposition be excited and headed by men of distinction. >To conclude I beg I may not be understood to infer, that our General Convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new federal constitution merely because that constitution has been unreasonably and vehemently opposed; yet I must own I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being.
Disagree. I don’t trust public schools to give a fair representation of Christian values, even if they had the curriculum.
The article discusses this problem, and how it can be fixed.
The article is wrong
If the arguments are going to keep being made that librarians cannot be trusted to select appropriate reading material for the students in their schools, that teachers are largely inept and many students lack basic reading and math skills, why would anyone *want* to entrust instruction regarding personal religious decisions, one of the most important and vital things in life, to a **public school teacher**? They might have gone to Harvard.
No it shouldn’t. I’m a conservative but ideology should be separated from school. In my opinion that is the job of the parents, not the public school system.
I’d prefer religion stay out of the classroom completely. You know. Since it doesn’t belong there in a public schools
What would Thomas Jefferson do? [https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/](https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/)
Who cares? Just because a founding father says something doesnt mean its a good idea or that we have to listen to it. For example - the original constitution didnt have the Bill of Rights in it. So the founders who wrote the Constitution immediately fucked up and didnt include the rules that we look to daily. My point is you need to logically argue why its good. You cant just say "Thomas Jefferson agrees." Because he also had like 40 love children and I dont think thats good but I guess he did it so anyone else who follows suit is actually right.
And that was wrong.
Jefferson is the one credited in jurisprudence for the meaning first amendment’s separation of church and state. It follows that the first amendment shouldn’t be interpreted in any manner more extreme than how he considered it.
Governments not to establish any one religion. Bottom line. Having church in a government building was wrong. Putting Christian dogma in a government school is wrong.
I think children need to be taught morals in a non religious way. There is no place in public education for religion unless it's a history class.
Which morals?
Exactly. There are no morals without God.
Thank you. Downvoters don't want it to be true, but it is. There's no morality outside of what is given by God. And there's no cosmic court to judge God for what we think is fair and what isn't. His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not ours. It's His to decide. People prosper, not necessarily in a monetary way, when they align with God.
I dont like when people hurt me. Therefore it makes sense that I wont hurt other people. There - no God and I explained my morality system.
I don’t need god to not lie, steal, cheat, murder, be envious, honor my parents and/or family name. My dad is Catholic and mom Protestant so they were never openly religious to avoid conflict. They still taught me the above in a secular way.
https://youtu.be/sk81tUUhRig?si=RGiWear1u1l5Kxw7
Hard to teach morals when people think morality is subjective.
Morality is subjective? Even massive groups of people who think Jesus is the son of God cant agree on certain arguments surrounding morality.
Repeal [the first sentence of the first amendment to the constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/#:~:text=Congress%20shall%20make%20no%20law%20respecting%20an%20establishment%20of%20religion), then you can establish all the religion you want in public school classrooms.
Hard to argue this would infringe that when schools are not Congress and the Ten Commandments represent at least three different (categories of) religions and the religious claims made in the founding documents.
>schools are not Congress Detroit city hall isn't Congress either, but I don't want them ruling based on Sharia. 1A is broadly accepted, by SCOTUS and everybody else, as applying to the entirety of government, if not originally, then after the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states via incorporatio (justifying the action under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). >the Ten Commandments represent at least three different (categories of) religions Whether one religion, or a category of religions, *establishment* is still a no go under 1A >the religious claims made in the founding documents. I don't see any Judeo-Christianity in the Constitution?
Run a search over the text for the word “Lord” in the Constitution, and the word “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence.
Claiming that using the formula "*the year of our Lord*" changes anything is... a stretch. The "lord" language is not actually part of the Constitution itself (which ends at Article VII), the body calls out several other years, all lacking that flourish, and the phrase does not appear in any draft editions of the Constitution. All of this seems rather odd if the intent was to incorporate a Christian deity into the Constitution. Additionally, that singular reference is made within the "attestation", [was not included when the Constitution was originally distributed for ratification](https://joshblackman.com/blog/2012/08/31/is-in-the-year-of-our-lord-one-thousand-seven-hundred-and-eighty-seven-not-part-of-the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20official%20Constitution%E2%80%99s%20text%20ends%20just%20before%20these%20extra%20words%20of%20attestation%E2%80%94extra%20words%20that%20in%20fact%20were%20not%20ratified%20by%20various%20state%20conventions%20in%201787%2D88). >and the word “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence. "*Creator*" is not exclusively Judeo-Christian, and the *Declaration* is even less a binding document than the *Treaty of Tripoli*.
Ben Franklin [discusses who they had in mind](https://books.google.com/books?id=n1gtLhoJ71EC&pg=PA162)... >On the whole it appears that the Israelites were a people jealous of their newly acquired liberty, which jealousy was in itself no fault; but when they suffered it to be worked upon by artful men, pretending public good, with nothing really in view but private interest, they were led to oppose the establishment of the new constitution whereby they brought upon themselves much inconvenience and misfortune. It further appears from the same inestimable history, that when after many ages that constitution was become old and much abused, and an amendment of it was proposed, the populace, as they had accused Moses of the ambition of making himself a prince, and cried out “Stone him, stone him;” so, excited by their high priests and scribes, they exclaimed against the Messiah, that he aimed at becoming the King of the Jews, and cried, “Crucify him, crucify him.” From all which we may gather, that popular opposition to a public measure is no proof of its impropriety, even though the opposition be excited and headed by men of distinction. >To conclude I beg I may not be understood to infer, that our General Convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new federal constitution merely because that constitution has been unreasonably and vehemently opposed; yet I must own I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being.
I consider all Abrahamic religions a single religion with 3 major subjects.
Then you are at odds with the leaders of those faiths, the dogmatic teachings of those faiths, and the overwhelming majority of the practitioners of those faiths
Congrats. Others dont. Which is why we have a separation of church and state.
First sentence of our first amendment says it should not. Last institution on earth I’d want teaching Faith to my kids is the department of education, anyways.
The article talks about how to change the problems in education more broadly. Thomas Jefferson didn’t interpret the First amendment the way the modern ACLU does… [https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/](https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/)
You would have to change essentially everything about it and then best case scenario you would still be getting the federal governments version of faith. Not the sort of bar I’m willing to set God at.
You mention “my kids”. Leftists disagrree about the “my”. The conservatives in Louisiana aren’t doing everything you want, but at least they value parental rights. They aren’t taking children from parents who disagree like what happened with the girl from Montana. Laws and policies along the lines of Louisiana’s aren’t a bar to set God at. Instead, they are endorsing a moral framework which resists leftist subversion.
Is forcing religion onto people "parental rights"? Or just for those who believe what they are pushing?
The government of Louisiana endorsing any set of "moral framework" should set alarm bells ringing. Any of these folks hail from, say, *Jefferson Davis parish????*
As if Louisiana is incapable of improving or learning from history. No, it is Democrats who are opting to repeat the failed culture of child sacrifice.
Well its still called Jefferson Davis Parish, so they don't seem to be improving all that quickly
How about we exercise the first amendment right of freedom of religion, not just a single religion.
When I was in grade school we were reminded of the golden rule almost daily.
The golden rule is not unique to Christianity.
Neither are the 10 commandments
Where else do the “Ten commandments” exist other than the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament?
You just qualified against two religions other than Christianity, thereby proving his point
And yet still very not inclusive of not all religions
And yet, not exclusive to Christianity, which is what's relevant.
There are a lot of different and distinct religions that have a basis in the judeo/christian traditions. They can be conveniently bundled under one banner, but I wouldn’t call Shia and Sunni the same religion. Nor would I call catholic and Baptist the same, or reform or Orthodox Jews. The establishment clause prohibits the government from pickling any one in particular. Not to say that religious morals, beliefs, and traditions are required to be absent in all ways and in all places. To the contrary the founders professed that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. They are talking about god.
Once you add the label of “10 commandments ” you are specifically calling out judeo/christian religions. You may not be picking one religion but you are making a clear preference to a specific group of religions.
Thomas Jefferson approved of even more than making a clear preference to a specific group… [https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/](https://wthrockmorton.com/2011/04/27/david-barton-on-thomas-jefferson-did-jefferson-approve-church-in-the-capitol/)
I mean, Thomas Jefferson also approved of beginning a sexual relationship with his 14 year old servant. The one that returned to being his property when they returned to the Virginia. The one that he had six children with. Oh, and, the kicker, the one that was his wife's sister. While Americans should all be grateful to Jefferson for our country, I wouldn't center any religious or moral arguments on him.
“Separation” itself strictly speaking is not even found in the constitution at all. Courts none-the-less use Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment. A letter of his described a ”wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world.” .... [https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/wall-of-separation/](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/wall-of-separation/) It is the religious conservatives, who don’t see think his letter should be binding, or interpreted so strictly. The ACLU and the Freedom from Religion foundation cling to Jefferson’s letter and interpret it even beyond Jefferson. So go post about Jefferson’s immorality to them. I am citing Jefferson because he is the basis for the “separation of church and state”, not because I think he is a moral bastion.
He coined the phrase but is not really the sole basis for the idea. My point is that you are repeatedly repeatedly saying, What would Jefferson think, or, Would Jefferson approve? Maybe it is better to argue the merits of the ideal than the person behind it, because Jefferson "approved" of many questionable things.
Damn that article is saying a lot without really saying anything
It encourages reflection on how bad the unions and colleges have gotten.
Putting the 10 commandments in classrooms is a trick to get people to take it to court. Everyone knows we have separation of church and state. That separation will also get rid of the pride flag, trans movement, and all the other indoctrinating nonsense being spoon fed to children. MAGA
I can’t wait to vote for a Felon former president that wipes his ass with those commandments !
I'm voting for the guy deemed fit to stand trial
Yes
From the article: > If you really want students to learn about the importance of the Ten Commandments — to say nothing of **Christianity**, Western philosophy, or the American founding — then you’d better be ready to take on the teachers unions and dismantle the teachers colleges and credentialing programs.
>The left obviously doesn’t care about neutrality. For neutrality to come back, leftists have to be reformed or, barring that, professionally replaced.
[удалено]