We agree on religious freedom - inasfar as I believe you have the right to worship as you please and please leave others alone. The rest is just a bloody hemorrhage. I can see that I'm not going to be able to lead you to consider anything rationally. It appears that "reasonable" is one of your taboo words - just as are "non-partisan" and "cooperation." Personally, I think you've od'ed on AM talk radio hatemongers and wouldn't see the truth if it was painted on your windshield - with all due respect..<quoted text>
I said that the seperation between church and state should be respected. I don't expect the government to pay vouchers or anything else to me, I'm self-sufficient, but in return I don't want to pay for others lives as well that include, welfare (particularly third and forth generation), an over-sized and over-ruling government, condoms, and a hundred other things.
We are a country of great many beliefs and great many opinions, many different races, and many different cultures, it is near impossible to find anything that is taught in our schools or could be taught in our schools that "everyone" is going to agree with, so we should stop trying. Perhaps its time that we take the money "we" give the government and have it be dispursed equally between a few various schools and allow the parents to decide which one is the "closest" fit for their children.
I'm not sure, its simply a thought, but then again I at times believe that the country itself should be segmented, have the liberals have their own government and money and live their way, and the same with conservatives. Certainly trying to bring us together has not, nor will it ever work.
By the way, what makes you think Jesus would be a liberal. I think completely opposite. And if he would be a liberal, why is it that conservatives have embraced his teachings so?
There is no way that schools tailored as you describe would work. the logistics alone would dictate that they'd have to be boarding schools, and morally what you describe is exceedingly questionable. You are endorsing the same kind of indoctrination to ideology that communism employed, you're just moving it from one central government to a handful of consortiums.
Jesus opposed the conservatism of the temple, Sanhedrin and Herod Antipas' regime. His position was without question radically progressive, defying and uprooting the restrictive and stagnant framework held in place by the powerful to benefit their hierarchy. You support the conservative establishment of church and politics - a restrictive and stagnant framework held in place by the powerful to benefit the hierarchy. That platform would not readily tolerate an influence of change like Jesus today, just as you clearly would not tolerate a figure like Lincoln today. I'm appalled that you think two sides working toward the common good is not acceptable and that dividing the nation is. By your proposal the country would never stop being divided and subdivided. The only way that could stop would be anarchy or totalitarianism. I suspect you think the former sounds like liberalism and latter might not bother you at all.