September 05, 2006

A Round-house Kick to the Head

Came across this article about actor Chuck Norris and his wife, Gena, joining the Board of Directors of the National Council on Bible Curriculum In Public Schools. Not that this surprises me. He is an outspoken proponent of faith and family values issues.

I'm sure he will take a great deal of heat from secular sources and from "the industry". Especially those folks who say the "Council" that he is now a board member of is promoting the teaching of religion in schools. This, of course, would be a violation of the "seperation of church and state" clause from the Constitution. Oops, wait a minute. It really doesn't say that anywhere in the Constitution. What were they thinking? Oh...I remember, they weren't.

The article is also available at this PDF link.

I better stop before I overdose on sarcasm. Somebody please get me my purple pills!!

Technorati links
, , ,


  1. Jesus, you're bitter! I would think that it would be better for parents to directly oversee the relgious teachings of their children than to trust it to the schools, who have a hard enough time teaching the three R's.
    And, the First Amendment is pretty clear, perpaps you should use the Teamster eye coverage we have and get some glasses. LOL

  2. Actually this story has nothing to do with religion. It's about teaching history.

    The Constitutional language you speak of...

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

    ...refers to the two clauses in the First Amendment that guarantee freedom of religion (not from). The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official state religion or preferring one religion over another.

    The first amendment says nothing in regards to the sources that teachers and students use to teach and learn history. The Bible is an historical record of facts. The people and places written about are historically accurate. Facts backed up by writings from other authors as well as archeological finds all substatiate it's accuracy.

    Unfortunately the frantic folks at the "Asinine Communist Liberal Uber-anger" society ("ACLU" for those who read mostly MSM) who hate everything this country stands for won't be happy until all traces of religion, or references to, are eliminated from society. Somehow in their faith tradition (Liberalism - which is a religion unto itself) they have determined that all other religions are invalid and should therefore be eliminated. Sounds a bit like Germany in the late thirties.

  3. Todd, freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. This is one point on which we differ. Your freedom to have religion is the same freedom as my freedom to not have any religion.

  4. I would beg to differ with your description. Freedom of is NOT the same as freedom from.

    Freedom OF religion means that I am free to practice or participate in any way shape or form of my choosing. That may be dancing in my front yard, praying at my desk at work, reading a Bible in the break room. All of these activities are within sight of anyone who chooses NOT to have religious beliefs.

    Conversely, if those that do not have religious beliefs wish to exercise their right to not dance, pray, study scripture, etc., there is nothing to prevent that.

    Freedom FROM religion implies that there should not be indication's that religion exists. One should not see or hear any references to religion. This would require those that do exercise their Constitutional right to freedom OF religion to cease. In a free society you can choose not to participate in activities that others are involved in (ie: religion). You cannot require others to cease their involvement in activities that you are not in favor of simply because of your personal beliefs.


Always glad to have some form of reaction/response to my posts. Caustic or otherwise.