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

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


What are you on about?

I provided an article and so did TD- I don't see the problem here... It's just stating the grounds on which schools may not force children into prayer or mass prayer...

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...

Got back from making coffee only to find that you couldn't find a quote supporting your claim in the Constitution, either, and so had to settle for a 'description', with no quote to back that up, either.

Further, your 'documentation' supports my assertion that the federal government has no proper say in the matter at all.

Thanks for playing.

[edit on 2010/5/26 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu

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...

What exactly are you looking for then?



[edit on 21/04/10 by jinx880101]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Maybe they should just make it simple Don't pray.

Actually it is that simple.

Except this prayer-obsessed principal insisted on making it a huge issue. How about if we just use schools to learn things and play your sports games? Then later on at church or at home you can say whatever prayers you feel you need to say. Deal?

reply to post by myeyeshavseen


LOL if both teams are praying for the win does god pick sides? I mean does god listen and whoever has the most people praying he makes them win?

Your right, why waste your time praying for a silly game, if your going to put energy out there for the universe then I say pray for enlightenment for the species that way maybe we can save our butts and get over the war mentality.

reply to post by myeyeshavseen



I agree with most of what you say. except praying at a game seems logical to me, from a christian perspective that is.

like i have said, while i don't share their beliefs i would not want to stifle them. I have seen the good that comes from it, and am satisified to leave the majority of its evils in the annals of history.

Originally posted by jinx880101
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

What are you on about?

I provided an article and so did TD- I don't see the problem here... It's just stating the grounds on which schools may not force children into prayer or mass prayer...

ok. yet no one was forced into anything here.

so why present the information? It would seem to contend a strawman argument.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Maybe they should just make it simple Don't pray.

Actually it is that simple.

Except this prayer-obsessed principal insisted on making it a huge issue. How about if we just use schools to learn things and play your sports games? Then later on at church or at home you can say whatever prayers you feel you need to say. Deal?

No. Because that is tyranny.

People should not be forced to suppress themselves for the comfort of others. That stadium was full of adults as well as children, each a willing participant.

That is what gets me about this. People are being told they cannot participate willingly in something religious in nature because it may offend a minority.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Exactly but he was complaining that he may no longer pray for/ with the whole school. He made that pretty clear. He is complaining about this new 'law' being passed, that prevents him from doing so. Hence all the comparisons with 'earth day' etc. So yes- when you ask to see this law I am going to show you.

But, don't complain and run around in circles when the information you guys ask for is provided.

Originally posted by jinx880101
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

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 presume you mean me, as the 'other member'. Sorry I didn't respond, I thought you were aiming at Texan.

You've still failed to cite the prohibition in question from the Constitution.

Hint: that's because it's not there.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
No. Because that is tyranny.

People should not be forced to suppress themselves for the comfort of others. That stadium was full of adults as well as children, each a willing participant.

That is what gets me about this. People are being told they cannot participate willingly in something religious in nature because it may offend a minority.

No, it's not tyranny. The public institution is paid for from funds derived from atheists and even religions that do not contain a personal deity. It is tyranny to spend taxpayer dollars to rant and rave about the suppression of prayer, then suggest that everyone pray because he's discovered a loophole in the law.

Indeed, minorities can be offended and this is why we live in a rule of law republic rather than a mob rule democracy. Public schools are for learning (and sporting events apparently), religious institutions are for prayers. This is easy for anyone to see.

Originally posted by nenothtu
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?

So this is how Christians have a discussion eh? Some lie and some twist. I see. Is that in the bible somewhere? Is that how Jesus became so awesome? Lying and twisting?

Find the quotes of me specifically stating "my tax dollars" and the context with what they were in response to and you can have a more honest discussion about this. Seriously. When talking in general about public schools, my tax dollars go to public schools so I am more the free and correct to use that term in response to general statements about public school.

Aside from that, the argument carries but I doubt you would understand that.

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.

If you skipped straight from the Original post to whatever response of mine you are referencing, then you missed quite a bit. Would reading the thread through and paying attention to context be too much to ask?

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

Find my quote and backtrack from there.

Ah, but I'm sure you wouldn't do that, especially after having castigated another poster, and outright calling him a liar.

None of you like reading do you? Why come to an internet forum just to ignore what people write? You want a blog.

I never castigated any old poster for lying. You obviously missed some details. Find those quotes for me and lets see where you went wrong there too.

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?

Do you understand anything? I did not come in here and announce where I lived or any of that nonsense. You insisted I answer a question that on an internet forum makes no sense. Want to know if I am a busty hot blond lonely for just you as well? It is the internet. If you ask a question that is so easy to just lie about, then I fail to see the value in the question.

No matter, as a staunch Satanist, I'm sure your ethical code forbids lying.

Not sure why you would think that.

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

All fifteen of them.

Wait, that is right, I never even said ALL MY KIDS WENT THERE.

PLEASE LEARN TO READ!!!!!

Does Christianity destroy the ability to read or are you all the same stupid person?

What kind of stupid thing is that to say? I was in high school the same time as my older sister, does that make my mom a freak?

How did you get "enjoy his religion" out of that comment?

He was talking about his religion. If he does not enjoy that, perhaps he should shut up then.

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?

Not even sure what you are asking me here. I said what?

Another nice sidestep. You seem to be pretty good at that.

I am a good reader too. I can be good at two or more things. Can you be good at something?

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 nenothtu


Tell me exactly what you want and I will try and find it for you- It must be somewhere on the net, because the Principal obviously knew what amendment he was talking about. It obviously does exist, otherwise he would not have made the speech he did.

I did post quotes from two separate sources... One from the first amendment and another from a court ruling that was supplied by Traditional Drummer.

I get the feeling I am missing something, so please be clear in what 'quotes'/ 'laws' you are looking for.

Originally posted by jinx880101
reply to post by nenothtu

 

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...

What exactly are you looking for then?



[edit on 21/04/10 by jinx880101]

I apologize for not making myself clear. I'm looking for the quote, in the US Constitution, that states that no one is allowed to broach religion on public properties. The specific Constitutional prohibition against that.

I ask for this, because it seems to be the crux of the problem, that this person has somehow violated that Constitutional prohibition.

My view on this is simple, they should definately have the right to do so, as long as they want to, if anyone else doesn't want to, they should be allowed to NOT, they may be Atheist or have different beleifs and should not be forced to pray to the xtian God if they don't want to and this is the reason for seperation of church and state, And I support this myself, nobody should have any beleifs crammed down their throats.

reply to post by nenothtu


Well, if it is not yet in the constitution, and the court has ruled the actions in question unconstitutional, then surely it would take some time to get that onto 'paper' ?

I thought the court ruling would be sufficient and of course the first amendment... but I will see if the above has been officially added into the amendment as of the court ruling.

It might take a while though.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Definitely. What I dont understand though is how people get offended by being in the proximity of a person praying. Someone must've made a big deal over it at that game. If you dont agree or believe in prayer, why not just ignore it? It's harmless, so why get angry?

The same way I dont agree with same sex relationships, but I have respect for them 100% and I wont sit here and think and talk like I am better than they are. I just ignore their sexual preferences and treat them like the human beings they are.

Americans love Drama!!!!! THEY'RE OBSESSED WITH IT! haha

Originally posted by myeyeshavseen
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Definitely. What I dont understand though is how people get offended by being in the proximity of a person praying. Someone must've made a big deal over it at that game. If you dont agree or believe in prayer, why not just ignore it? It's harmless, so why get angry?

Why could the coach not just quietly say a prayer by himself or with a group of like minded volunteers? Why did he need to announce these things over the PA? It works both ways. Why should I have to ignore your rant about homosexuals and your religious view of them? Why cant you just hate them to yourself?

The same way I dont agree with same sex relationships, but I have respect for them 100% and I wont sit here and think and talk like I am better than they are. I just ignore their sexual preferences and treat them like the human beings they are.

So how would you like a gay pride parade being held before the big game? Paid for with tax dollars on school property? Would that be cool with you?

Americans love Drama!!!!! THEY'RE OBSESSED WITH IT! haha

Not wrong there.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


The sporting event is ancillary to the school. Around here we call it a "community event".

This gentleman was angered over the forced change within his community.

This is why the constitution allows for redress of grievances. If anyone had issue with what he said, they have that full capability by appearing at the next school board meeting.

Our system is designed around communities. Those communities having values is what gives strength to a culture. You don't have to agree with those values, and if you don't should likely move to a more cosmopolitan area where those values are not espoused.

America is based on the ability to live free. By the very definition of what is happening here, that freedom is being stifled on the off chance of a few being offended.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by nenothtu


For now, you can read this... www.usconstitution.net... .

I have no clue about practicing religion on 'public properties' but when it comes to 'public schools' which are a part of the US government, the above link goes into a bunch of court cases regarding prayer at schools. You will see, that they do allow prayer that is not directed at ONE god, but general prayers are tolerated.

For example-

Another major issue that the Court has grappled with in recent years is that of prayer broadcast over the public address system of a school during extra-curricular activities, such as football games or graduation ceremonies.

The latter issue was addressed in 1992 by the Supreme Court, in Lee v Weisman (505 US 577). The case involved the invitation by Robert Lee, a middle school principal in Providence, Rhode Island, to a rabbi to deliver an invocation and benediction at graduation ceremonies in 1989. Deborah Weisman was one of the graduates, and her father, Daniel Weisman, objected to the inclusion of the prayers in the ceremony.

The Court noted that the rabbi's comments, which are included in full in the Court's opinion, lasted no more than two minutes. Attendance at the ceremony was voluntary. The Court noted that the ceremony was held in school facilities. Weisman had sought a temporary restraining order to block the prayers, but had been unsuccessful. His case was filed at an attempt at a permanent injunction against future prayers.

The District Court had found the practice of invitation of a member of the clergy to offer prayers to fail the second prong of the Lemon Test. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court, and the city of Providence appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court also agreed with the ruling in Weisman's favor. The Court noted that while the prayers offered were non-sectarian in nature, in that they referred to and thanked God without reference to uniquely Jewish or Christian belief, the prayer was still primarily religious in nature:

The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." The State's involvement in the school prayers challenged today violates these central principles.

The Court noted that Lee gave the rabbi a pamphlet that was intended as a guide on how to structure and deliver non-sectarian prayers, but the Court indicated that this good-faith effort, rather than making things better, made things worse: "Through these means, the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers."

It carries on....

[edit on 21/04/10 by jinx880101]