What is more important to be taught in school - Gay themes or the Constitution?

Exactly! If you can't teach the kids writing you have no business forcing children to learn about other people's sexual lifestyle!

More hypocrisy from the left: Can't teach religion or display religion in schools but teach them about homosexuality?

Not on my my dime!

 

"Cursive writing is gone but gay education is in."

Teaching cursive writing, like Latin, is silly and stupid.

 

Taxcutter says:
Cursive and Latin are far more useful than sodomy.

 

Why is that stupid?

 

What you mistakenly thought was an error has been explained to you. Either refute the explanation or quit whining.

 

OK skippy, show us where 'The bill of rights includes the terms "Life Liberty and Pursuit of happiness".' It should be easy unless you don't understand English.

 

'cuz both cursive and Latin are dead. Even when cursive is done by a good writer, it's hard to read. And Latin? No one uses it except maybe the Pope and he's just reading it off a script and doesn't know what it says.

Latin is only useful to study about word origins, roots and stuff. But learning Italian and Spanish (Castilian) is more useful because you get all the benefits of Latin plus you learn something of a new language which might come in handy. Especially Spanish because it'll be an advantage in about 20 more years when the U.S. comes under Hispanic political control.

 

Jim is all a student needs to know about homo.... wait.... GYM is all a student needs to learn about other people's parts while in school.

STEM, history, english, and government (civics) should be required curriculum EVERY semester. Or mix/match, but get it done.

 

Those terms are in the USDI which can be taken as part of the Bill of Rights = used in the formulation of the Bill of Rights. This is not Rocket Science but feel free to make yourself look even more foolish by continuing to nit pick.

 

Just as I thought, it is an issue with English. The "term" "Life Liberty and Pursuit of happiness" is not in the Bill of Rights like you claim. Nice try but you are batting zero.

 

You can cry and whine all you wish but this will not change the fact that these terms are in the founding documents. In the "context" of the conversation you interrupted these rights bear directly on the issue of "rights and freedoms" in relation to gays.

You can quibble all you like over whether or not the USDI is part of, connected to directly or indirectly, the Bill of Rights but at the end of the day it does not matter to the context of the conversation.

It is nonsense to claim that there are no rights in this country in relation to sexual preference.

 

Such FAIL, you claimed that term was in the Bill of Rights. Oh, and since you know your history so well, you should also know that the Framers believed in protecting morals with law.

 

The only fail is your ability to address the topic.

I have explained what I meant numerous times. It is not "in" the Bill of Rights but these rights were used in the formulation of the bill of rights and exist as rights in our society.

What religious morals did the framers want made into law ?

 

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778

 

People could benefit from that. Especially people who use words like "cuz" and stuff.

 

Why? It is in the Oxford Dictionary.

 

Who recommended that because it certainly goes against what these folks said. Further, this passage says nothing about making something law.

Kind of begs the question "What is the "true religion" and what morals are referred to.

It is not a big secret that one of the primary purposes of the constitution was to build a wall of separation between church and state.

 

Freedom of not Freedom from.....

 

If you look at the best high schools in the US, you find a surprising number of religious schools. http://private-schools.findthebest.com/)
You do know that way back when the US had the best schools in the world, many were the type of institution that you mock? I would be willing to make the sacrifice to go back to a time when the US was #1 in education.

 

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said. "[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."

Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution. "[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."

I could go on.

Also the "primary purposes of the constitution was to build a wall of separation between church and state" is wholly nonsense. That came from a letter Jefferson wrote and used in a court case. The primary purpose of part of the First Amendment was to make sure government did not establish a religion like England did. The primary purpose of the Constitution was to code into law what government can and cannot do.

I still strongly suggest you don't teach anyone what you think you know about the Constitution.

 

Freedom of religion is different that freedom from religion. That is why the constitution addresses the "freedom from" separately.

The State (not referring to a state) "Congress" is not to make laws based on religion and is not to force religion on people in any other way.

 

I love it when people repeat what i say and then act like they are debating.

 

What an absolute FAIL. LOL You completely ignore the quotes provided giving the thoughts of the founding fathers (some directly related to the Constitution)

I do not deny that Religious zealots that came after the founders have tried to obscure the fact that the founders wanted separation of Church and State (and gave their reasons why)

 

Nice try at deflection. You keep avoiding your ridiculous claims with misdirection.

 

It's always important to gain more knowledge. Seeking knowledge is a good thing.