Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
Author Message
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-01-2015 08:30 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  It's stupid to say that the Founders were immensely influenced by Christian theology when writing the early documents.

It's also stupid to say that the Founders were not at all influenced by Christian theology when writing the early documents.

Some founders were influenced by Christianity while others were not. A strong argument can be made that the original intent of the government was to make it purely secular. Even in the Declaration, the 2 references to a deity were vague"

Quote:The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

The last part of the quote that I highlighted is very interesting to me. In the past, many used the bible as a means to buttress the monarchies in the Christian nations of Europe - in particular the books of Samuel and Kings thru the anointing of David to be the king of God's people. Also, I'd say Matt 22:21 has also been used as a proof text by people for people to be obedient to their government and to overthrow your government is to deny God's will. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's". The U.S. was unprecedented in nature at least after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. I don't know enough about the Greek and Roman Republics on whether they were very secular or not. I doubt it though.
07-01-2015 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #22
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-01-2015 08:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I do not believe the founding fathers would be aghast over the Warren Court ruling against school prayer. IMHO, they would be aghast over the Christian references that have been worked into what was supposed to be a secular gov't.

They absolutely would have been aghast.

Remember, the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, but doesn't prohibit the states from anything of the sort. The various state governments were completely free not only to have something minor and piddling like teachers lead a prayer in school, they were free to establish full-blow State Religions. E.g., if in 1800, Maryland had wanted to declare Judaism to be the the official religion of that state, and give it all kinds of state sponsorships and priveledges, the Founders believed that the Federal government and supreme court should have no say in that whatsoever, that it was a matter strictly for the state.

The Warren court ruling was pure liberal interventionism, federal judges imposing their beliefs on the constitution.The same applies to modern rulings against teaching Creationism in science class, etc. It's all made-up liberal pablum.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2015 10:43 AM by quo vadis.)
07-01-2015 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-01-2015 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 08:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I do not believe the founding fathers would be aghast over the Warren Court ruling against school prayer. IMHO, they would be aghast over the Christian references that have been worked into what was supposed to be a secular gov't.

They absolutely would have been aghast.

Remember, the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, but doesn't prohibit the states from anything of the sort. The various state governments were completely free not only to have something minor and piddling like teachers lead a prayer in school, they were free to establish full-blow State Religions. E.g., if in 1800, Maryland had wanted to declare Judaism to be the the official religion of that state, and give it all kinds of state sponsorships and priveledges, the Founders believed that the Federal government and supreme court should have no say in that whatsoever, that it was a matter strictly for the state.

The Warren court ruling was pure liberal interventionism, federal judges imposing their beliefs on the constitution.The same applies to modern rulings against teaching Creationism in science class, etc. It's all made-up liberal pablum.

Article I found on establishing religions on the state level. Bottom line, the supreme court prohibited it repeatedly by reference the establishment clause. I'm not a lawyer so cannot comment on the details. But this plus the fact that virtually all 50 states patterned their constitutions on the U.S. constitution, I wouldn't expect this to happen anytime soon in actual practice, or in this case to be nullified pretty quickly.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s...religions/

Quote:North Carolina legislators made national headlines last week with a bit of high-profile religious extremism. They introduced a resolution declaring that the state has the right to declare an official religion – presumably Christianity. The bill also contended that states are “sovereign” and that federal courts cannot prevent states “from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.”

Quote:State assaults on the separation of church and state are nothing new. What set the North Carolina bill apart, however, is that it was an aggressive attempt to change the constitutional landscape. It made an argument that conservative lawyers have been developing for some time: that the first amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states – and that, as a result, states are allowed to favor a particular religion in a way the federal government cannot.

Quote:The attempt to declare that states can choose a favored religion might sound a bit loopy, but it is actually a prominent item on the far-right constitutional law wish list. Conservative legal advocates have been arguing for years that the Establishment Clause only prohibits the federal government from designating a favored religion – not the states. They point out that at the time the first amendment was adopted, many states – including North Carolina – actually had established religions.

But the Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states – and they have underscored this holding repeatedly since then. There is, however, one prominent dissenter: Justice Clarence Thomas. In a 2004 opinion, he argued that the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect the states from having Congress impose a religion on them. Given that, he argued, it “makes little sense” to use the Establishment Clause to tell the states what they can do.
07-01-2015 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #24
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-01-2015 11:24 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 08:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I do not believe the founding fathers would be aghast over the Warren Court ruling against school prayer. IMHO, they would be aghast over the Christian references that have been worked into what was supposed to be a secular gov't.

They absolutely would have been aghast.

Remember, the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, but doesn't prohibit the states from anything of the sort. The various state governments were completely free not only to have something minor and piddling like teachers lead a prayer in school, they were free to establish full-blow State Religions. E.g., if in 1800, Maryland had wanted to declare Judaism to be the the official religion of that state, and give it all kinds of state sponsorships and priveledges, the Founders believed that the Federal government and supreme court should have no say in that whatsoever, that it was a matter strictly for the state.

The Warren court ruling was pure liberal interventionism, federal judges imposing their beliefs on the constitution.The same applies to modern rulings against teaching Creationism in science class, etc. It's all made-up liberal pablum.

Article I found on establishing religions on the state level. Bottom line, the supreme court prohibited it repeatedly by reference the establishment clause.

The SCOTUS uses the establishment clause to prohibit school prayer by invoking the 14th amendment, which makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. But:

1) That means the Founders would have been aghast at those rulings, as they did not believe the federal government, via the courts, should have the power to control state-level religious establishment, and ...

2) Those who enacted the 14th amendment would also be aghast, as they never intended that amendment to mean that states couldn't have prayer in schools either, just as they never intended it to force the states to recognize gay marriage. Both prayer and schools and refusal to marry gays were widespread in 1868, and nobody who enacted that amendment meant for it to deny the former and mandate the latter. The very notions would have been regarded as ridiculous.

Neither was ever intended by those who enacted the amendments the SCOTUS has cited, so what has happened is the SCOTUS justices have simply read their personal preferences into the constitution.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2015 04:39 PM by quo vadis.)
07-01-2015 04:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UConn-SMU Offline
often wrong, never in doubt
*

Posts: 12,961
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 373
I Root For: the AAC
Location: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
Post: #25
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
The Founding Fathers did not want a state religion, like the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran Church in Sweden. They wanted to prevent forced membership in any church. They did not want a wall between church and state that would prevent valedictorians from mentioning God in commencement speeches.

I hope everyone sees a difference between the two.
07-01-2015 06:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GrayBeard Offline
Whiny Troll
*

Posts: 33,012
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 880
I Root For: My Kids & ECU
Location: 523 Miles From ECU

Crappies
Post: #26
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-01-2015 06:01 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The Founding Fathers did not want a state religion, like the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran Church in Sweden. They wanted to prevent forced membership in any church. They did not want a wall between church and state that would prevent valedictorians from mentioning God in commencement speeches.

I hope everyone sees a difference between the two.

You are throwing your pearls before swine.
07-01-2015 06:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #27
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(06-30-2015 10:45 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(06-30-2015 09:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Somewhere Okladixie is off having an emotional breakdown.

Yep....and eating a large plate of crow. He said it would never happen.

Like that clown would ever admit he was wrong.
07-01-2015 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #28
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-01-2015 06:01 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The Founding Fathers did not want a state religion, like the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran Church in Sweden. They wanted to prevent forced membership in any church. They did not want a wall between church and state that would prevent valedictorians from mentioning God in commencement speeches.

I hope everyone sees a difference between the two.

Correct, except with the caveat that they did not want the federal government to be able to control what states did about religion.
07-02-2015 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #29
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
These discussions always get interesting. But, trying to pick what they would and would not have said is difficult.

The history of incorporation has shown that the framers were rather open ended and left no super clear instructions. Even today, not every amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the states.
07-02-2015 04:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BEARCATDALE Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,630
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 428
I Root For: UC
Location: passed out somewhere
Post: #30
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(06-30-2015 10:16 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Sure. Put them all up. Devil worship, too.

Wonder where this statue will end up at?

[Image: baphomet.png?w=400&h=225&crop=1]
07-02-2015 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
olliebaba Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,102
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 2151
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
Post: #31
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-01-2015 07:11 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  It amazes me that there are people out there whose soul purpose is to sue to tear down monuments.

You misspelled sole. Oh wait, you sneaky dog, you did that on purpose, huh? 03-wink

It's apropos.
07-02-2015 08:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dmacfour Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,822
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Idaho Vandals
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
Quote:
(07-01-2015 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 08:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I do not believe the founding fathers would be aghast over the Warren Court ruling against school prayer. IMHO, they would be aghast over the Christian references that have been worked into what was supposed to be a secular gov't.

They absolutely would have been aghast.

Remember, the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, but doesn't prohibit the states from anything of the sort. The various state governments were completely free not only to have something minor and piddling like teachers lead a prayer in school, they were free to establish full-blow State Religions. E.g., if in 1800, Maryland had wanted to declare Judaism to be the the official religion of that state, and give it all kinds of state sponsorships and priveledges, the Founders believed that the Federal government and supreme court should have no say in that whatsoever, that it was a matter strictly for the state.

The Warren court ruling was pure liberal interventionism, federal judges imposing their beliefs on the constitution.The same applies to modern rulings against teaching Creationism in science class, etc. It's all made-up liberal pablum.

"The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."

-Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

I think the supreme court already made it clear that the "wall of separation" applies to individual states. They certainly applied it to a state law in New York back in the day.
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2015 12:24 AM by dmacfour.)
07-03-2015 12:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #33
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-03-2015 12:22 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  
Quote:
(07-01-2015 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-01-2015 08:08 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I do not believe the founding fathers would be aghast over the Warren Court ruling against school prayer. IMHO, they would be aghast over the Christian references that have been worked into what was supposed to be a secular gov't.

They absolutely would have been aghast.

Remember, the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, but doesn't prohibit the states from anything of the sort. The various state governments were completely free not only to have something minor and piddling like teachers lead a prayer in school, they were free to establish full-blow State Religions. E.g., if in 1800, Maryland had wanted to declare Judaism to be the the official religion of that state, and give it all kinds of state sponsorships and priveledges, the Founders believed that the Federal government and supreme court should have no say in that whatsoever, that it was a matter strictly for the state.

The Warren court ruling was pure liberal interventionism, federal judges imposing their beliefs on the constitution.The same applies to modern rulings against teaching Creationism in science class, etc. It's all made-up liberal pablum.

"The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."

-Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

I think the supreme court already made it clear that the "wall of separation" applies to individual states. They certainly applied it to a state law in New York back in the day.

The supreme court says the "wall of separation" applies to the statse, but those who wrote the 1st amendment obviously did not intend for it to apply to the states. They intended for it to apply to the federal government, not the states.
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2015 06:21 AM by quo vadis.)
07-03-2015 06:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UConn-SMU Offline
often wrong, never in doubt
*

Posts: 12,961
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 373
I Root For: the AAC
Location: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
Post: #34
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-02-2015 07:19 PM)BEARCATDALE Wrote:  
(06-30-2015 10:16 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Sure. Put them all up. Devil worship, too.

Wonder where this statue will end up at?

[Image: baphomet.png?w=400&h=225&crop=1]

The leader of the devil worshippers was on Fox a couple nights ago. He looked and talked like you would expect. Creepy. He wanted to put up this bearded goat next to the Ten Commandments.
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2015 06:31 AM by UConn-SMU.)
07-03-2015 06:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
Most satanists are atheists. The church started by Anton LeVey is atheist.
07-03-2015 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fitbud Offline
Banned

Posts: 30,983
Joined: Dec 2011
I Root For: PAC 12
Location:
Post: #36
Re: RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(06-30-2015 08:16 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-30-2015 08:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Those evil commandments.

You'd be cool with the 5 Pillars of Islam, though, right?

There should be no religious symbolism in a government building that promotes equality.
07-04-2015 10:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hitch Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,535
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Maryland
Location: Washington
Post: #37
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
Update: It looks like the OK governor is going to dig in her heels while they search for a work around.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-...rnor-says/

I've never understood the argument that US laws are somehow based on the 10 Commandments. The first four are basically religious practice (Constitutionally banned from being part of US law), the fifth is really about being a good member of your family (no such law exists), six through nine are/were laws (though adultery laws have been done away with), and the tenth is basically thought-crime. Rules against killing, theft, and slander are essentially universal for human society so why does the 10 Commandments get special recognition as opposed to, say, Hammurabi?
07-08-2015 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,377
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #38
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-04-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(06-30-2015 08:16 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-30-2015 08:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Those evil commandments.

You'd be cool with the 5 Pillars of Islam, though, right?

There should be no religious symbolism in a government building that promotes equality.

nor should there be agenda of any sort....

well said fit....
07-08-2015 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #39
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-08-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Update: It looks like the OK governor is going to dig in her heels while they search for a work around.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-...rnor-says/

I've never understood the argument that US laws are somehow based on the 10 Commandments. The first four are basically religious practice (Constitutionally banned from being part of US law), the fifth is really about being a good member of your family (no such law exists), six through nine are/were laws (though adultery laws have been done away with), and the tenth is basically thought-crime. Rules against killing, theft, and slander are essentially universal for human society so why does the 10 Commandments get special recognition as opposed to, say, Hammurabi?

This is probably why.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture...n-founding

Quote:Early colonial laws and constitutions such as the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and Massachusetts Body of Liberties are filled with such language—and in some cases, they incorporate biblical texts wholesale. Perhaps more surprisingly, tolerant, Quaker Pennsylvania was more similar to Puritan New England than many realize. The Charter of Liberties and Frame of Government of the Province of Pennsylvania (1681) begins by making it clear that God has ordained government, and it even quotes Romans 13 to this effect. Article 38 of the document lists “offenses against God” that may be punished by the magistrate, including:
swearing, cursing, lying, profane talking, drunkenness, drinking of healths, obscene words, incest, sodomy…stage-plays, cards, dice, May-games, gamesters, masques, revels, bull-baiting, ****-fighting, bear-baiting, and the like, which excite the people to rudeness, cruelty, looseness, and irreligion….[11]
An extensive survey of early colonial constitutions and laws reveals many similar provisions. As well, at least nine of the 13 colonies had established churches, and all required officeholders to be Christians—or, in some cases, Protestants. Quaker Pennsylvania, for instance, expected officeholders to be “such as possess faith in Jesus Christ.”[12]

Quote:The Declaration of Independence, the most famous document produced by the Continental Congress during the War for Independence, proclaims: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” As well, this text references “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and closes by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” and noting the signers’ “reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” The Founders’ use of Christian rhetoric and arguments becomes even more evident if one looks at other statements of colonial rights and concerns such as the Suffolk Resolves, the Declaration of Rights, and the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms—to say nothing of the dozen explicitly Christian calls for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving issued by the Continental and Confederation Congresses.[15]
07-08-2015 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hitch Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,535
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Maryland
Location: Washington
Post: #40
RE: Ten Commandments have to come down in Oklahoma
(07-08-2015 10:16 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Update: It looks like the OK governor is going to dig in her heels while they search for a work around.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-...rnor-says/

I've never understood the argument that US laws are somehow based on the 10 Commandments. The first four are basically religious practice (Constitutionally banned from being part of US law), the fifth is really about being a good member of your family (no such law exists), six through nine are/were laws (though adultery laws have been done away with), and the tenth is basically thought-crime. Rules against killing, theft, and slander are essentially universal for human society so why does the 10 Commandments get special recognition as opposed to, say, Hammurabi?

This is probably why.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture...n-founding

Besides being a Heritage source, that report/article never once addresses the 10 Commandments as a foundation for US law.
07-08-2015 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.