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

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

This is why the constitution allows for redress of grievances.

He wasn't petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. He was expressing his grievances to a crowd and inciting them to operate in defiance of law according to a legal loophole he believes he discovered.

Quite frankly, he's obsessed with prayer and feels it a necessary school function. Despite court rulings to the contrary he feels it necessary to thwart the rule of law in favor of his principles. This is not a good example to set as an educator.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
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.

Does that include the ability to live free of the religious obsessions of a public servant who desires to thwart the law? Why yes, of course, it does.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

No. Because that is tyranny.

It is NOT 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.

It does not matter. This law which has been around since the birth of this nation is not taking away the PUBLIC'S RIGHT to freely pray to their deity of choice/indoctrination. This law is enforcing the principal to do his JOB. The principal works for the government and is not allowed by constitutional law to establish any religion regardless of personal beliefs whilst acting in his official capacity.

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.

What get's me is people's inability to flipping read. re-read the damn OP and stop with this stupid nonsense garbage.

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.

Curious if people would have that same attitude if that were Fred Phelps up there making a speech and littered his speech with his brand of Christianity?

What if, instead of it offending the minority, it offends a majority?


Also, leading a prayer at a public event gives the impression that it's not a public event anymore, but an event for Christians,
and makes people feel unwelcome and uncomfortable.

reply to post by sickofitall2012


Re-read the OP. He didn't say everyone was not allowed to pray anymore, but that he can't (as a government worker) establish religion in his official capacity at government run public events, like the government funded school football game.

Then it seems as though it boils down to a difference in understanding of the constitution.

I see religious freedom as being able to express yourself freely. I understand not allowing it in a classroom. But do not feel that stifling it before a football game is in any way within the spirit of the constitution.

I further state that unless someone in attendance feels the need to redress this, there is no issue.

But i cannot argue that the way he went about it was obnoxious.

Money has been wasted on more outlandish things, so yea, why not a gay pride parade on school property? LOL As long as no one Prays for the safety of those marching, then it should be ok right?

reply to post by nenothtu

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.

....

Yet you presume to insinuate that I am the one who "can't even understand the very basic foundational documents"?

Yes, because even after explaining the damn thing you still don't get it.

What your asking does not exist as the private right to worship in public is not forbidden at all. The right for government workers to call for prayer *is* against the constitution, first amendment. They have no right to establish any religion at all.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Then it seems as though it boils down to a difference in understanding of the constitution.

I see religious freedom as being able to express yourself freely. I understand not allowing it in a classroom. But do not feel that stifling it before a football game is in any way within the spirit of the constitution.

I further state that unless someone in attendance feels the need to redress this, there is no issue.

But i cannot argue that the way he went about it was obnoxious.

Deedeedeee...

The right to worship is not being taken away. The law is being enforced to stop government workers from establishing religion.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But do not feel that stifling it before a football game is in any way within the spirit of the constitution.

I believe that it is. The notion of a public servant accepting pay from the public coffers pushing religious principles at an event funded by pay from the public coffers in exactly why the First Amendment exists and is exactly what it is about. The rights of the people were established to protect them from these types of misbehavior from government employees.

This is part of the letter that Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Telling them what separation of church and state truly meant when they first wrote it.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience."

Basically what it was first meant for was the church couldn't take over the state, and the state couldn't make laws about the church, and or religion in general. Not to tell you when and where people could pray/ worship.

The amendments true purpose was to protect the American people from a religious take over. The amendment was inspired by England which constantly changed the state religion and if they changed so did you. It was not put into law to tell me I couldn't worship in a public place, or learn about creation in school rather than another "belief system" in school that has so many holes in it a blind man could see through it.

Now instead of having prayer in school we have metal detectors, pregnant thirteen years old, eight year old boys that say "when I grow up I want to be a gangster". We have a society as a hole that is falling apart. I myself am only 23, but I look at these up and coming generations and they are polluted by the system. They are lazy, rude, and have no sense of consequences.

well I hope this new system is working out for you guys, if you can tell me what good has come out of the perversion of this amendment please do.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

I think they're treating prayer as a form of noise pollution nowadays, at least in public buildings. It all stems from a little thing called separation of church and state. Now, originally this term mean keeping greedy church officials out of the lawmaking and governance process in an official capacity, now it's used to keep public areas like school from becoming a soapbox.

I'm not a Christian, I'm not an anything; I believe that nobody can know the great mysteries of the universe and to be quite honest I find the bible rather silly and contradictory at times, but I respect the right of the individual to their beliefs. Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone decided to pray in front of me or at a public event, not one iota. However, whther or not people mind is not the issue. The issue here lies withe the fact that this man is the administrator of a government run factility, and while using their property on their time he needs to abide by their rules. Period. One of these rules happens to be against religous messages getting airtime on the school PA system.

I personally don't have a problem with it, but I see how people would. It's the law and until it changes again this is how it is.

Originally posted by bigcountry08
Now instead of having prayer in school we have metal detectors, pregnant thirteen years old, eight year old boys that say "when I grow up I want to be a gangster". We have a society as a hole that is falling apart. I myself am only 23, but I look at these up and coming generations and they are polluted by the system. They are lazy, rude, and have no sense of consequences.

I sure hope you're not suggesting that prayer in schools somehow would prevent the sociological problems with today's youth. I'll be glad to point to to several separate studies on the issue who have concluded otherwise on the sociological implications of religiosity.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

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?

I'm sorry. If you can direct me to the post where I mistakenly stated I was a Christian, I'll fix that. Otherwise, this whole section of yours is a smoke screen.

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.

I'll be happy to. The specific quote is this:

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.

From this post.

You'll note that you specified this individual, in this incident, at this school, not 'general statements about public school'.

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?

That wouldn't be asking too much at all. I did. Trying to throw smoke out with unfounded ridicule won't change that.

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

Find my quote and backtrack from there.

So you expect me to chase down your quotes AND mine? No, it doesn't work that way. Do your own homework, retract the statement, or stand as a one who makes it up as he goes along.

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.

No. I found one, you can chase down the rest. You're not going to keep my chasing busy work around. I didn't miss anything, and I'm not going to jump through hoops for you. I stand by what I said, and anyone reading this thread can see the same.

The attempt at ridicule you led this quote with indicates that you are aware of the weakness of your argument.

Do you understand anything?

Unfortunately for your contention, yes, I do.

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.

You opened that door by claiming it was YOUR tax dollars being violated.

Want to know if I am a busty hot blond lonely for just you as well?

No. Irrelevant. That would seem to be yet another smoke screen, an attempt to ridicule, indicating a weak argument.

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.

After having castigated the other poster, and outright calling him a liar, one would thing that you are above lying yourself, and so the fact that the venue is the internet should not permit you to lie yourself.

assuming you have a degree of integrity, that is.

The value of the question is to show the lengths you will go to in order to win the debate by illegitimate means.

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

Not sure why you would think that.

Sorry. My sarcasm switch must be broke.

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.

No, I did. And you bit.

PLEASE LEARN TO READ!!!!!

Likewise, you could benefit from the same.

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

Nice. Now I'm 'stupid', simply because you can't carry your point. Resorting to name calling is sort of weak, isn't it?

What kind of stupid thing is that to say?

See above.

I was in high school the same time as my older sister, does that make my mom a freak?

No, nor did I say, or even imply, that it did. I merely stated that it must be rough having all your kids in high school. If you have ANY kids in high school, you should immediately recognize the truth in that statement.

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.

That's a pretty tortured path to try to salvage that statement.

'Shut up then'? Nice. Silencing those you disagree with is a hall mark. I'll let you figure out on your own what it's a hallmark OF.

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?

Do try to follow along. we can keep the discussion current then, without having to backtrack to track down quotes you keep insisting on.

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?

Oh yes, of course. I have references, too, but they don't really belong in this discussion.

Just more ridicule and smoke. You must feel your argument slipping away, judging by all the obfuscation you're throwing out.

reply to post by Anti-Evil


It never ceases to amaze me that Christians believe they are the only ones who are right...

reply to post by jinx880101

If it were available, it would be all over the internet, because the Constitution is. I was specifically asking what Constitutional provision stated that his actions were an unconstitutional violation.

The principal himself didn't cite any Constitutional provisions, but rather a supreme court decision.

The two are different things, as can bee seen by reading the opinions of dissenting justices.

Originally posted by jinx880101
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.

Don't bother going on that chase. The Constitution can only be changed by an amendment process, which cannot be effected solely by a Supreme Court decision.

The First Amendment argument has already been addressed, earlier in the thread.

In short, please don't waste your time on that line of inquiry. If it's there, then it has to be already in the Constitution, and it will have to be somewhere other than the First Amendment, as that has been quoted verbatim already, and analyzed.

reply to post by sirnex
What you, and many others, do not understand, is that it is the DUTY of every citizen to disobey a law which is deemed illegal. You see, The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence gives citizens the right to petition the goverment for a redress of grievences. Civil disobedence, such as that practiced by Ghandi and Martin Luther King, is one way to pave the way for such a petition. This Principal is just leading the way.

reply to post by jinx880101


If we accept that on it's face, then there was still no violation. The principal made a point of NOT praying, and the individual attendees in the stands prayed individually.

That then makes it a non-issue.

[edit on 2010/5/26 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Anti-Evil

 

It never ceases to amaze me that Christians believe they are the only ones who are right...

Doesnt that statement describe all religions though??