The country already is ruled by religious law to some extent: thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal. Murder and burglary are against the law. Why aren't you all riled up about that? Constitution doesn't say anything about murder or stealing but yet we have laws for them.

By the way, we know what the Bible says so including in your post "what they think their Bible says" is a transparent attempt at discrediting them. Nice try but it didn't work. Those Republican officials' views are shared by a vast majority of the country's citizens. It just goes to show you that despite what the minority don't believe in, the majority of the population still enjoy and prefer having religion as a large part of their lives. And the side benefit is that those who disagree are welcome to do so as long as the laws of the land are still obeyed by all.

Care to provide said evidence that the Bible is fabricated? By the way, history text books are edited often (at the behest of many people's agendas) to remove events that make certain groups of people look bad to the rest of the world and for many other reasons. Would you doubt everything you learned about history after knowing that Boards of Education decide what to have in the history text books? There are other history books to read as well but, *sarcasm* can you really trust anyone who writes a book *sarcasm* Just come out and say you have a negative bias against religion and we'll move on.

Therefore it must not have happened? Lots of things happened throughout history that were never recorded. But in this case because a particular event happened to be recorded in what is considered a religious document and no where else you have trouble believing it? You have a closed mind.

If you were to send out pictures to civilians about a crime scene you are effectively contaminating the scene because you could be releasing evidence to the public (and therefore potential suspects) that typically you would want to remain private information. How do you justify taking pictures due to "stress" when you would be contaminating a crime scene and therefore not doing your job properly?

Sounds like they have a problem with immature police officers as well. Hopefully the officers got reprimanded for doing that.

Hmmm, definitely sounds like Obama. He knows what's good for us because we're just all stupid folk so we don't know nothing. He doesn't listen to what we want and will make us swallow whatever he thinks we should have. That makes for a great president, or at least one with a 40%-50% approval rating. You'd think he take the hint. Polls don't lie but I'm sure this will get modded troll anyway.

Socialism has the same privileges: you can't really be too successful, unless you are part of the socialist government. Otherwise all the money you earn goes towards supporting the poor or the government thus flattening the class structure or filling the pockets of the ruling class, respectively. Success is punished if you are not part of the ruling class.

Never read it or heard of it so give me your money. You lost your wager.

I didn't say that the Founding Fathers intended us to specifically have a Christian nation. There is no denying we have religious roots though with "endowed by our Creator" and "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence.

If the liberals who hate religion would ever get their way to lay down the law then all religion would be banned in this country unless it was talked about and practiced within the confines of a church or home. The atheists and others who believe in the separation of church and state are the ones who don't want to take up the cross. Go preach to someone else such as an atheist on this site. I don't need it. I'm not someone who wants to make sure all religion is hidden from view (or eradicated completely) like others on this site would prefer.

In this case the issue really is just teaching people about what other people believed in so yes it is about historical fact. That is different than the usual debate of teaching religion itself in schools. Why is it so bad to teach people that people in the past had a religious background? Why is all discussion about religion so bad? I just don't get it. If they suffered religious persecution in the past as you said then that should provide even more reason to teach students about the plight that those Founding Fathers had to endure so that it does not happen again. Up until this vote passed, it was questionable as to whether students would be allowed to learn about that religious persecution and the Founding Fathers' continued faith as they were founding the U.S.

So conservatives are anti-intellectual? Let me guess, you are liberal and are a genius? Anyone not on your side is stupid? That isn't elitist in the least. Conservatives really are under attack based on comments from people like you.

First, that doesn't mean it wasn't founded on any religion whatsoever.

Second, how do you explain "Creator" and "Nature's God" used in the Declaration of Independence?

We don't need the government's help to promote His message. It is nothing of the sort and would mean preaching would be in the classroom. Given the fact that liberals want to diminish or totally hide the fact that the Founding Fathers had faith and a religious background, the other side of the debate simply wants to make sure that those facets of the Founding Fathers' lives remain known. There is no reason to hide that fact unless the agenda is to try to make our country look like it was not founded on religious beliefs. So there is no message trying to be forced upon or preached to the children. It is simply a matter of not wanting to hide our history.

As far as taking "In God We Trust" off the currency, it is for the same reason as what I stated above. There is nothing wrong with making known our history just because it has a religious foundation, except for those who hate religion. Why religion is the aspect of people's lives that shouldn't be known in history class is beyond me but that's really the topic up for debate (well, not anymore, at least in Texas). So taking that phrase off our currency means that a little more of our history is erased. It isn't for enforcing a religion; it is intended to remember our history. In both situations, those who disagree can simply do that. Just like they can disagree, if they are a student, with anything else that is taught in their respective school. It is not the law but a reflection of where we came from. Those who question that or outright deny it are also against this vote most likely. Again, what is wrong with stating what history has to say? Is there something you don't want the public to know? Is religion *that* bad? No, it isn't.

The problem with that logic is that who defines the quality of life and whether it is bad or good? This is the same issue with abortion and assisted suicide. The excuse is frequently something along the lines that person A wanting to get rid of person B does it based on stating their *opinion* about person B's quality of life. It isn't person A's responsibility to state what is or is not an acceptable quality of life for anyone. Only person B can really decide that. If they are incapacitated (e.g. Terri Schiavo) then it becomes a problem because that person cannot speak for themselves (much like a baby about to be aborted). We shouldn't be essentially killing people because it is convenient. If a person is going to die due to the cancer and they don't want to live anymore because of what the treatment does to them then we aren't killing them. They will die of natural causes. But aren't we supposed to save people you ask? Obviously humans are always supposed to save someone's life if that person is in danger but there are some things we can't save people from, especially all the time.