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

reply to post by Loki Lyesmyth


Thank you!

For crying out loud... that's about as clear as you're gonna get it.



[edit on 21/04/10 by jinx880101]

Originally posted by jinx880101
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Relax, you'll blow a gasket. All those words, and some CAPS too, without being able to produce the requested quotes. Yet you presume to insinuate that I am the one who "can't even understand the very basic foundational documents"? That's very telling.

Seeing you are too busy making coffee to find it yourself- it's simple really, just a google search...

According to the United States Supreme Court, the Establishment Clause can be described in the following way:

"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another… No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance…In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intented to erect a "wall of separation between Church and State." (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)). Everson v. the Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).

www.wct-law.com...

So, as i read that above, the principle did nothing wrong. He made no law.

and since no one can punish him for entertaining or professing religious beliefs, it seems that this is a non issue.

thanks for sharing!

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Your reply to me above references curriculum. There is no curriculum involved with a high school football game.

That's funny, because he sure did have a lot to say about the things taught in schools these days. We are reading the same article, aren't we?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Your reply to me above references curriculum. There is no curriculum involved with a high school football game.

That's funny, because he sure did have a lot to say about the things taught in schools these days. We are reading the same article, aren't we?

Ever been to a football game? While he is presenting his "curriculum" the kids are beneath the bleachers throwing a football, or chasing the opposite gender.

If you can find 1 single definition of the word "curriculum" that allows for presentation in a football stadium, to non students, your point will be valid. Otherwise, it is untrue and a fallacy.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by jinx880101
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Relax, you'll blow a gasket. All those words, and some CAPS too, without being able to produce the requested quotes. Yet you presume to insinuate that I am the one who "can't even understand the very basic foundational documents"? That's very telling.

Seeing you are too busy making coffee to find it yourself- it's simple really, just a google search...

According to the United States Supreme Court, the Establishment Clause can be described in the following way:

"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another… No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance…In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intented to erect a "wall of separation between Church and State." (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)). Everson v. the Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).

www.wct-law.com...

So, as i read that above, the principle did nothing wrong. He made no law.

and since no one can punish him for entertaining or professing religious beliefs, it seems that this is a non issue.

thanks for sharing!

Sorry, but the correct legal reference is Engel v. Vitale (1962)
From this article on it:

According to Black, the governmentally created prayer recitation is much like the English creation of the Book of Common Prayer. It was to avoid exactly this type of relationship between government and organized religion that many early colonists came to America. In his words, the prayer was “a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.”

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

So, as i read that above, the principle did nothing wrong. He made no law. and since no one can punish him for entertaining or professing religious beliefs, it seems that this is a non issue. thanks for sharing!

No one said he broke a law. Stop trying to twist this it won't work.

He complained and cried like little girl that he no longer has the ability to pray to his god in public- where others worship/ believe in other gods. It's just plain disrespectful to do so.

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an alternate life style," and if someone is offended, that's OK.

Whatever man- I can see this argument is useless.


[edit on 21/04/10 by jinx880101]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

If you can find 1 single definition of the word "curriculum" that allows for presentation in a football stadium, to non students, your point will be valid. Otherwise, it is untrue and a fallacy.

He critiqued the curriculum in religious terms at the football game.

I guess you haven't read the article.

By the way, his "plenty to say" about what is in classrooms amounts to this one single statement:

I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depicts people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as "simple minded" and "ignorant" and call it "enlightenment."

The rest of the time he refers to a "public facility", i.e the football stadium.

I guess we aren't reading the same thing.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

If you can find 1 single definition of the word "curriculum" that allows for presentation in a football stadium, to non students, your point will be valid. Otherwise, it is untrue and a fallacy.

He critiqued the curriculum in religious terms at the football game.

I guess you haven't read the article.

I guess you haven't read the thread. I was way back on the first few pages, quoting entire tracts from the OP.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


From the article in question...

Arguments were made on April 3rd, 1962. On June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 1 that it was unconstitutional for a government agency like a school or government agents like public school employees to require students to recite prayers.

atheism.about.com...

There- happy?

Thanks TD for providing the correct article.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I did not sidestep it.

Well, yeah, you did.

I did not bother because it is irrelevant to the discussion and the forum.

No more irrelevant than your assertion that it was YOUR tax dollars paying this individual's salary. Now why would one include a detail like that... unless it were to establish some sort of false credibility?

For one thing, the conversation being had in general is about this happening at public schools. They have public schools all over the country.

Oh. My mistake. I could have sworn that the post said a principal at a high school football game in Kingston, TN. I missed the part about it being a nationwide epidemic of School principals suddenly taking over the mics and preaching their religion to captive audiences everywhere.

Perhaps you can direct me to that statement, so I can then correct myself.

Secondly, this is an internet forum. I can just say yes and not mean it, so why bother answer such a trivial question of no consequence?

Ah, but I'm sure you wouldn't do that, especially after having castigated another poster, and outright calling him a liar. Why, if you were to take such a course of action, telling an intentional prevarication merely for the sake of establishing a false credibility, what would that make you? No matter, as a staunch Satanist, I'm sure your ethical code forbids lying.

Need an answer? Yes. My kids go to the school in question. Feel better?

Much. It must be rough, having all your kids in high school at once.

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.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnope. You asked how it is NOT government intrusion on his religion. Have a different word you like better than "enjoy?" Go for it. I am not sold on that one. I answered exactly what you asked. How is it NOT government intrusion onto his religion. Government never did anything to prevent him from practicing his religion. That is how.

Evidently you misread the quote. I'll put it back in right here, to make it easier:

Originally posted by nenothtu
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?

I don't see "enjoy" or "intrude" anywhere there. I see " being invalidated" and "interfere". Assuming english is your first language, I'm sure you realize that something can be 'interfered with' and not be 'intruded upon'.

I could, for example, block all access, both in and out, to a piece of property, and yet never set foot upon it. I would have then 'interfered with' the owner, without ever having 'intruded' upon him.

He would of course have every right to raise holy hell if I did such a thing, so this principal appears to have been rather restrained.

Announcing your religion and practicing it are two different things.

Indeed they are, just as announcing your religion and preaching it (or making it the state religion for that matter) are ALSO two different things.

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

Really? Do tell? Is it by my answering your question but not how you like or my pointing out pointless questions when they are asked?

Neither. It is by your running around in circles, twisting and turning, in an attempt to avoid answering questions, and being held to what you say.

[edit on 2010/5/26 by nenothtu]

[edit on 2010/5/26 by nenothtu]

reply to post by jinx880101



Wait...we aren't discussing this in legal terms? Then why did you cite a Supreme Court ruling?

Originally posted by jinx880101
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

From the article in question...

Arguments were made on April 3rd, 1962. On June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 1 that it was unconstitutional for a government agency like a school or government agents like public school employees to require students to recite prayers.

atheism.about.com...

There- happy?

Thanks TD for providing the correct article.

Just so i am clear, we are now discussing this from the perspective of law? Just so someone doesn't accuse me of twisting anything....


But i fail to see where this principle required students to recite prayers.

Like i said, here in West Texas most of the audience are adults. Any children present have their parents with them.

Maybe they should just make it simple Don't pray. Just come on and say, "Gee, i hope everyone remembers good sportsmanship. And that no one gets hurts. And it would be really nice if we continue to have food on our tables. Good luck with that, everyone."

I mean, what is the big deal? I am not christian, and i cannot find the issue in what is said in these "prayers". They are just asking for good luck and all that jazz.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You were the one who brought up the law- when you said that 'from reading the above, he did nothing wrong because he made no law'...you know the rest.

I was providing an article originally for another member, who asked to see the quotes of these amendments or laws being put in place.

I then responded to you with the article that TD provided.

Originally posted by C11H17N2NaO2S
Another freak on about the BS of religion.

Look of all the this you mentioned - birth control, sex abortion, condoms - these are REAL things.

religion is NOT. You can not prove to me one instance where a god exists. I can prove to you many times over the reality or abortion and condoms etc. In a court of law there should be NO religion for I can not use the excuse "god told me to" as a defense because I will be deemed "Crazy".

And rightly so.....people use religion to excuse their behavior and as an excuse for having a weak and simple mind.

For me it not about not believing its about not being controlled by some make believe entity.

So mass praying before a game is absolutely ridiculous. It nothing short mass mind control and getting everyone in the same of mind. Nothing different from people like David Koresh , charles manson, Ron Hubbard. They controlled their "people".

"....those who believe in the manifestation of god should not be afforded the right of free will, for they have already given it up" - me

[edit on 25-5-2010 by C11H17N2NaO2S]

I had to friend you, first cuz your name means truth serum and second I cannot agree more with your statement. Namaste

Cheers to that Principal he's a man of principals!

I don't share his religeous beliefs, but I put my ass on the line so that he can have them and will continue to do so when necessary.

THAT is why this country was born and should continue in its original direction of FREEDOM.

What better example than in Redneckistan "America" can some jackass spout his or her religious BELIEFS as though they are facts, and then of course be widely praised for it (by fellow believers and non-believing enablers alike)? The US is rivaled only by Iran in that regard. Damn Abrahamics (in particular) are, or will be, the ruin of humanity, at least primarily, or defintely moreso than any other groups. They're the biggest troublemakers on the planet, at least effectively, due to the most stringent dogma of their psychotically mistaking beliefs for objective reality having WAY too much political influence, or any at all.

reply to post by jinx880101



Right.

And so what is this thread about?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by myeyeshavseen

I believe in prayer, but I also believe that if you are going to pray to God, it should be done in a quiet and calm place. School is not that place, IMO. That's what churches and homes are for, to practice your beliefs freely.

if they were in school, i could agree.

but they weren't. they were at a game, and were praying for the safety of boys who were going to be throwing their bodies against each other as hard as they can.

The good thing about the way our schools work is that the community can direct school policy. get active in your school so you can prevent prayer from being said before sporting events.

democracy at work.

Why would people pray before a foot ball game? That's funny to me, sorry. Football is an unsafe game, which people Choose to participate in so praying for safety is paradox. The same as praying for soldiers to be Safe in war. There's always a possibility of getting hurt, but people Knowingly join in.

It's not a Bad thing to pray for such things, but it is also uneccesary. We people shouldnt pray for things that we ourselves can prevent and control. Thats why we have free-will and such, to handle the little things.

If you live by faith, well having faith in Yourself, then you wont worry about the minor things, for example a recreational football game, you'll be praying about resolving the oil spill issue or something Important.

I have my own version of what prayer is supposed to be about, and what this principal did was not Wrong, but it wasn't pratical either, even for christians.