warning this can offend law abiding citizens - Which I'm not one of.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


No no no no no .... YOU misunderstand the law.

HE is allowed to base his views on moral and ethical dilemmas PURELY ON RELIGION .. and he's allowed to express that as well.. He is not however permitted to talk about religious ideology, or religious specifically.

EVERYONE'S personal views are dictated around their personal beliefs, that's why it's personal. My views regarding such arguments are very religious and ideological, even though I am not "Christian" it still runs into my core being. There cannot be a law that says if your idea is based on religious fundamentals you may not speak it. It's an abomination of nature.

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Rockpuck]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I have clearly made no mistakes about you. You are a tyrant, and deserve the ridicule you get. It is way past my bed time and I will say it one last time before going to bed, all people have the right to worship freely in public and neither you, nor any government has the legal authority to stop it. Good night, and God Bless.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by bagari
Some might call that a lack of tolerance on your part - a big no-no in today's politically correct society. Of course, it's quite clear that it's alright to show a lack of tolerance toward christians but no other group.

What makes you think I'm not Christian? Plenty of Christianity out there that doesn't support the teachings of Jesus. Sounds more like intolerance to anything but Christianity.

The very word Christian means follower of Christ .....so where are the christians who dont follow Christ?
they are anything but Christian fer petes sake....!

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I believe his message was that since he is not allowed to pray out loud in front of everyone so everyone can see him worship his god, he is going to point out that his religion has intolerant views of homosexuality instead. Not appropriate for a FAMILY event held at a public school on my tax dime.

YOUR tax dime? You live in Tennessee then?

He did not say one valuable thing about the topics he mentioned. He pointed out that although his RELIGION is against them, he can talk about them if he wants.

It's not valuable to point out how his religion is being invalidated by government due to the insistence that he be forced to delve positively into issues that are anathema to it? How is that not a governmental interference with his religion?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You have clearly not read the Tennessee constitution, for if you had, you would know that Article IX, Section 2 prohibits atheists from holding any government office. This principal is angry because a federal government has ignored the 10th Amendment, the First Amendment and used a reference Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptists to justify their tyranny. All people have the right to worship in public.

What part of this is hard to get? No one's right to privately pray to their deity of choice/indoctrination is being taken away here. The principal works at a government run public school which is forbidden by constitutional law to sanction one religion over all others. If the principal does not like the constitution, he can quit his job as it's a government funded and owned job.

Federal law supersedes state laws.

There is nothing vague at all about what is meant by Creator, and it sure as hell wasn't talking about King George, my friend. Too many people have attempted to frame our Inalienable rights as government granted rights, and now they call them civil rights, regardless, this sort of shenanigans is what is B.S., and I don't care if it is Creator or God who is used, as long as it is understood that rights come from a higher authority, if you insist on calling Creator too vague, then I suppose you will argue the same about the 9th Amendment.

The founders of this country were deists, not Christians. The wording was purposefully written as Creator so as to encompass ALL religious deities and beliefs, not the Judaic-Christian God. It does not say *GOD* it says CREATOR. A Hindu has a different creator than a Christian. An Atheist has a different creator than a Christian. Again, Creator does not mean Judaic-Christian God. What higher Authority does an Atheists rights come from? Don't be a dolt here, you have a brain, use it.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

No no no no no .... YOU misunderstand the law.

HE is allowed to base his views on moral and ethical dilemmas PURELY ON RELIGION .. and he's allowed to express that as well.. He is not however permitted to talk about religious ideology, or religious specifically.

Condoms and gays being bad things is part of his ideology and Christianity is pretty specific for a religion.

EVERYONE'S personal views are dictated around their personal beliefs, that's why it's personal. My views regarding such arguments are very religious and ideological, even though I am not "Christian" it still runs into my core being. There cannot be a law that says if your idea is based on religious fundamentals you may not speak it. It's an abomination of nature.

I could care less what he bases his beliefs on, when he talks about sex and what is and is not an abomination - in who's eyes again? - then he has introduced religious ideology into the discussion.

Christians are NOT the persecuted minority that they like to think they are. It is not that prayer is "Not Allowed" it is that mandatory prayer is not allowed. Now before you get all up in a huff about this think for a moment how you would react if it was prayer to Mohamed or Aries. and every morning the teachers would guide all of the students in prayer. And earth day really has nothing to do about "saving the earth" it in fact has a lot to do about keeping earth livable for us humans.

In short by not oppressing any religious activity the law is not oppressing christian religious activity.

I bet if Christians where forced to put up with the level of oppression that they put other groups through in the past for one week, just seven days of real honest convert or be tortured to death oppression, they would all abandon their religion. but that will never happen because believe it or not Christians are not oppressed they are IN CHARGE, and they have been for decades....

Originally posted by sirnex

The principal works at a government run public school which is forbidden by constitutional law to sanction one religion over all others.

I may be mistaken, but I believe it was you that I asked earlier in this thread to point out where the US Constitution forbids the free exercise of religion in ANY facility. I've been up all night waiting for that answer, and have yet to see it.

Please enlighten me.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I have clearly made no mistakes about you.

Really?

You act so hurt and misunderstood, and actually believe you haven't been ranting away with your own political beliefs, and the difference between you and I is that I insist you have every right to do so in public if you choose, and you insist I don't, and amazingly point to the First Amendment to support your assertions.

Show me where I said any of this again? Where did I bring of the first amendment? Give me a quote, a link, a post number, even a page number would be fine. Otherwise, I will have to take you at your word. You made no mistake, you simply lied. Thanks for pointing out the difference finally.

reply to post by endisnighe

First off, I noticed you did not give any reference to the Constitution on where the federal government can "takeover" schools. Still waiting for that power granted to them by the Constitution.

Jesus, seriously?

WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT TAKING OVER SCHOOLING?

What part do you not understand that you have a right to home-school or send your children to private school? Your argument is born out of stupidity and blatant ignorance. It makes no sense as it is patently false!

As for allowed to home school or send your child to private school. You have got to be kidding me. Do you not know the hoops you have to do to home school nowadays? As for private schools, hmmmm, I wonder if they have to be licensed, inspected, regulated and have their curriculum's mandated by the government?

Oh ok... so you don't want your kids to learn math, science, social studies, PE, etc etc etc.? Yes, the government does have a curriculum you do have to follow, and that's just for the rights of your children so they have common knowledge required to make it in society. Your allowed to add on to that curriculum whatever you so choose and many religious home schooled learn biblical scripture and other subjects.

Nor is it that damn hard. Your ignorance and lack of understanding how to go about it MAY make it hard or seem hard, but it is far from hard. It's nothing more than proving that you have the capacity and competence to actually teach. Children have rights as well, if you don't like that, then tough titties.

Emotional rhetoric will get you no where. How bout you using some logical reasoning behind your arguments?

How about taking your own advice? Your argument is ignorant of the facts.

Right, exactly! There is no way in hell you are going to advocate the freedom to worship in public because you are not for it, which has been my stance all along, and it is you who has been lying, equivocating, and backpedaling all the way.

Incorrect. He is merely advocating equal freedom for all religions to worship their god in public. The problem is, Christians seem to be the only ones who have a problem with their religion not being law.

I think you are missing the point on purpose. I think what KJG is trying to say is basically- 'how would you like it, if I stood up at school and started praying to Allah or Lucifer OR whatever god I choose?'

Christianity pushes their religion down others throats- Schools should not teach any ONE religion. That should be left for the family to decide what they teach their children. It is not fair to have one major religion being taught in a public school when there are potentially hundreds of students who are Muslim, Islamic or Jewish.

Ya dig?

Originally posted by nenothtu

YOUR tax dime? You live in Tennessee then?

Is that really a rebuttal?

It's not valuable to point out how his religion is being invalidated by government due to the insistence that he be forced to delve positively into issues that are anathema to it? How is that not a governmental interference with his religion?

Why does he need a PA system and a captive audience to enjoy his religion? I do not see anything telling him what he can not believe or what he can not say on his own time in his own places. Care to show me?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Anecdotal evidence is, by nature, anecdotal. What ISN'T anecdotal is the strong correlation between longterm behaviours and the habits of those people a child is around up to and during their teen years. Obviously, it doesn't affect 100% of children, but it does affect a large number of them. Why do you think Christian households and Muslim households by and large produce Christian and Muslim children (and later, adults), respectively? Because the person grew up in that atmosphere, not because of any soul-searching or analysis of their beliefs.

I share my anecdotal evidence so that you may know when you have begun to beat your head against a wall. Use it however you may.

I would pose that children in Christian households grow up to be Christian because that is the primary viewpoint presented to them by their parents, to the total exclusion of other religions. I would pose that kids of Christian households become Christians primarily out of familiarity, not indoctrination.

But I would further pose that this is irrelevant to the conversation. If children grow up in Christian households, then i am sure they had no issue with the announcement

Some people find strength and peace through heroin. Some through rape. The only difference being, those people don't appeal to a spirit in the sky.

Wow, talk about strawmen.

Are we going to talk apples to apples, or shall it be apples to aardvarks?

Again, anecdotal. It's amazing to me that you know what is going through the mind of every child in every town in every state, and how those thoughts and observations inform their deicisons. Simply amazing.

I am telling you my EXPERIENCE growing up under the Friday Night Lights of West Texas. I have been at a high school football game as much as just about anyone in the US. I grew up around them, i played in them, my son will play in them.

I don't claim anywhere to know what EVERY child thinks or will do. I do claim to have experience in the situation, and see all the antireligious fear mongering for what it is.

If you do not share my opinion, then I am cool with that. It is why we live in a representative democracy. The local politics are heavily influenced by the demographic of that area. You and yours can run your communities as you see fit, and we will do the same.

Wow, really? You don't think any Muslim children play on their school's football team, and that their family doesn't support them if they do? What an awfully ethnocentric and disgusting thing to say.

No, that isn't what i said. I say it likely is a very rare occurance. For there to be a crime, there must first be a victim. Either produce your victim, or put the strawman back in the closet.

No embellishment. I would personally consider the audience at a crowded game captive. Do you think I would have time, between the beginning and end of the principal's tirade, to leave? I would have to hear what is being said, stand up, shuffle my way through the bleachers, shove my way through a crowd, walk across a parking lot, and then leave. I doubt I would even make it to the crowd before the speech was finished. Thus, captive.

You would have every opportunity to ignore whatever it was you were hearing. You are free to leave. Impedences do not make one captive. Imprisonment would.

But if you are so offended by what he said that you would get up and leave in protest, i might pose that you are one of those people who are so petty as to be offended and protest a little girls lemonade stand.

I believe you are creating an unreasonable scenario based on the situation. I would not say that, in our nation, someone could be considered a victim because they were unable to ignore what someone was saying.

I would also pose that this entire conversation betrays an overly litigious national attitude, and a straying so far from the principles that the nation was founded on as to render it unrecognizable. A principle on a PA system is not tyranny.

No chastising? Really? Hm, let's see. I'll enumerate them for you, in bulleted format, to make it a bit easier:

- Calling homosexuality a "sexual perversion", thus chastising any student who is homosexual.

And if they are unable to handle the opinions of someone criticizing them, they may be ill prepared for life.

I happen to be sick of them talking about McDonalds while showing stock footage of fat people, as if there were something wrong with being fat. Oh well...thicker skin is needed in a free society.

Your first step in making headway on this point would be to get homosexuality classified as a "protected class", such as race and religion (doh! notice religion is protected, and homosexuality isn't).

- Calling anyone who celebrates Earth day a "religious worshipper of Mother Earth"

I didn't get an insulted response from my wiccan friends over this comment. Their thoughts? "Yep, that is true. I worship mother earth."

- Calling anyone and anything that critically analyses Christianity into question (because, god knows, we don't want to examine WHY certain beliefs are held)

I didn't interpret what he said that way. Perhaps your problem is with your inferrence, not his communication?

- Calling any stance against the principal's personal beliefs "diabolical", thus chastising any student who doesn't fall into the fold.

Damn. Reach far enough and you might be able to play the role of Plastic Man.

I will sum it up for you:

Some folks seek a way to be offended at everything.

Edit
double post

[edit on 26-5-2010 by GummB]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

As if teaching homosexuality and condom use in any school, let alone public schools is appropriate. Please. Let's just do away with the damn public schools, and then people can send their kids to whatever school best suits their ideology.

After all the thought you put into those arguments you say that stupidity. Your probibly right, let's go have unprotected sex with no education about safety or disease. Just trust in god and all will go well.
You are nieve and a troll
I have been monitoring your garbage arguments and you are definately fabricating ideas to make your arguments valid. Which have been run into a hole but you still persist, why?
I thought Jesus did not need your support

[edit on 26-5-2010 by GummB]

reply to post by Anti-Evil


Good balls on that principal. However, your ending statements kinda ruined it for me. The Supreme Court are assholes, so I'll just leave it at that.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by sirnex

The principal works at a government run public school which is forbidden by constitutional law to sanction one religion over all others.

I may be mistaken, but I believe it was you that I asked earlier in this thread to point out where the US Constitution forbids the free exercise of religion in ANY facility. I've been up all night waiting for that answer, and have yet to see it.

Please enlighten me.

Oh for crying out loud, really?

THE PRIVATE RIGHT TO EXERCISE ONES RELIGION IS NOT INFRINGED UPON IN A PUBLIC SETTING. YOU ARE STILL FREE TO PRAY TO YOUR DEITY OF CHOICE/INDOCTRINATION.

Maybe I'll try the headline tag next time someone asks stupid questions.

The law forbids government from establishing one religion. Public schools are government owned and school officials are government paid workers. It is not that damn hard to grasp. Religion does not belong in any faculty of government in any capacity. The government is secular and forbidden from establishing any religion.

You are STILL FREE TO WORSHIP where ever you so choose, but a government official, such as that principal is not allowed to establish his religious convictions in an official capacity working for the government at a public event funded by the government run school system.

DUH DERR? Seriously? Is this what America has fallen to? A crackpot nation that can't even understand the very basic foundational documents that made this country a great nation?

Thank's friend I needed this. I wonder what TPTB would do if they prayed out loud at every event accross the country. My thought is that eventually we would have a revolution. Great post. s/f and an applause if I could.

Talking about private schooling....

There are Private Christian schools if you feel that strongly about having your child indoctrinated basically- against their will. But that's totally at your own discretion.
My little brother in law goes to a 'Christian Academy' a block away from home.

The problem I have with schools like these is that for science, they learn about the flood and Noah's ark... On top of that, if you are sick, the teachers lay their hands on your head to 'heal' you- You are not allowed to take medication if you have a headache, they will treat you the way they see fit.

On top of that- every page of 'modules' they have to finish starts of with a bible verse- you cannot continue working on the page unless you have learned the bible verse off by heart, and put a flag up to alert the teacher that you are ready to recite it.

I for one, hope Religion is taken out of public schooling completely. If you want your child to be brought up in a Christian school, you are more then welcome to send them to one of the above.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by nenothtu

YOUR tax dime? You live in Tennessee then?

Is that really a rebuttal?

Noooo... that's called a "question".

An UNANSWERED question. Nice sidestep.

It's not valuable to point out how his religion is being invalidated by government due to the insistence that he be forced to delve positively into issues that are anathema to it? How is that not a governmental interference with his religion?

Why does he need a PA system and a captive audience to enjoy his religion? I do not see anything telling him what he can not believe or what he can not say on his own time in his own places. Care to show me?

How did you get "enjoy his religion" out of that comment? For that matter, how did you get "telling him what he can or cannot believe" or say on his own time out of that comment? Another nice sidestep. You seem to be pretty good at that.

Looks like I better put on some coffee. This is shaping up to be another avoidance match.