It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by nenothtu
With a dissent, I note, and apparently 2 abstentions, since there are 9 justices.
So it wasn't unanimous. I'll have to wade through the decision and the dissent, in order to see what was said, and what wasn't said, Could take a while, since there will also be briefs to consider.
It would be nice of you to point out the fallacy, rather than just making a blanket statement that there is one there somewhere.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by nenothtu
With a dissent, I note, and apparently 2 abstentions, since there are 9 justices.
So it wasn't unanimous. I'll have to wade through the decision and the dissent, in order to see what was said, and what wasn't said, Could take a while, since there will also be briefs to consider.
Doesn't matter. It was upheld in Abington School District v Schempp in 1963. 8 to 1 decision.
It would be nice of you to point out the fallacy, rather than just making a blanket statement that there is one there somewhere.
I explained it in the previous post.
Originally posted by apacheman
Would the principal's supporters feel the same way if he were a Muslim, Wiccan, Satanist, or Hindu?
Somehow I think they'd be screaming for his head.
This isn't about "freedom", it's about promoting one faith over all others.
Christians always preach tolerance while practicing intolerance.
If I'm watching football, you've no right to push your faith on me while I'm doing it, unless you advertise in advance it's a Christian event, in which case fine, but I won't be there.
My second point is: Why is it necessary to have prayer or the National Anthem at a sporting event?
We don't do it before a movie, play, or opera. So why a sporting event?
Originally posted by sirnex
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 K J Gunderson
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?
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?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
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.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by nenothtu
Should be pretty easy to find it and explain it then, right? Why haven't you done so? I've searched the Constitution up and down, and still haven't found what you imply is there. You'll have to point it out to me.
If you can.
From this site:
School districts must allow religious speech on the same terms as they allow other speech. Therefore, students have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activities. A public school may not suppress or exclude private student speech for the sole reason that the speech contains a religious perspective. Although public school officials may not promote or initiate student prayer or require unwilling students to participate in prayer, they may support and give official recognition to this nation's collective religious heritage without risking a violation of the Establishment Clause.
This was established in the U.S. Supreme court in the case Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
Originally posted by bigcountry08
Um we used to but over the years they have stopped. There is actually a theater in my home town where they still do play the national anthem, and no were not some small town of 100 rednecks we actually have around 150,000 people who live here, and it's a northern state. (Not saying anything against southern states)
Originally posted by nixie_nox
My first point will be:
Want prayer at school? Then go to Catholic School.
My second point is: Why is it necessary to have prayer or the National Anthem at a sporting event?
We don't do it before a movie, play, or opera. So why a sporting event?
Are we saying that a football game and its players are holier and deserve more respect then the kids who are putting on a musical?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by nenothtu
With a dissent, I note, and apparently 2 abstentions, since there are 9 justices.
So it wasn't unanimous. I'll have to wade through the decision and the dissent, in order to see what was said, and what wasn't said, Could take a while, since there will also be briefs to consider.
Doesn't matter. It was upheld in Abington School District v Schempp in 1963. 8 to 1 decision.
It would be nice of you to point out the fallacy, rather than just making a blanket statement that there is one there somewhere.
I explained it in the previous post.
ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
370 U.S. 421
ENGEL ET AL. v. VITALE ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 468.
Argued April 3, 1962.
Decided June 25, 1962.
Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436.
Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by Loki Lyesmyth
" hell the sick people worship the blood of Christ, they LOVE it. Sadists. "
What are you talking about? Catholics? I cry at the thought of Christ's blood, I do not worship it.
I'm a Christian and just about every single sterotype you posted does not even pertain to me, so to be a bit more acurate in your descriptions, perhaps you should try and not generalize all Christians.
I have read your constitution and nowhere does it say a person in a public position can announce their religious views in a public forum like a school. The school is state run and as you have a seperation of church and state it most certainly includes the schools. Would you also be ok for an atheist to come on the PA system and say there is no god?