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

I completely disagree with this speech. According to the constitution you have freedom of religion, thus the supreme courts ruling should've been that. I go to a small middle school (summer break, next year I'll be in 9th grade) and all schools are allowed to have student religion clubs that can meet on campus during non-instructional times, you're also allowed to pray if you want too, but it should never be forced on a student, as that is his/her decision on what religion they want to follow.

Just my 2cents.

I couldn't make it thru all the pages of this thread to check this, but did anyone else read the Snopes article about this and notice that this occured almost 10 years ago?

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
I think a supreme pizza is capable of making a better decision than the supreme court anyday.

The Constitution is in-violet it cannot be changed my majority whim. It can not be changed by the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court. The only way it can be changed is by We the People calling on our states for a constitutional convention. That would take 2/3's of the states to make it happen.

So it looks like Prayer will continue to go on at school as long as it goes on at congress.



[edit on 25-5-2010 by SWCCFAN]

Also "case law" is not mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution says Congress creates laws not judges.

reply to post by Anti-Evil


That is in no way related to the op in any way shape or form. That is an out of line bus driver condemning a girl for expressing here views privately...See people, I'm all for freedom of speech! ...The bus driver had no business saying those things to the student and should be fired.

The only similarity I see is that both employees of the state, the principal and bus driver, should be fired for not keeping church and state separate as part of their job responsibilities.

reply to post by Reflection


You know it is ironic that you believe that by condemning the bus driver for relying on her right to speak freely, that you think you have somehow illustrated how you are for freedom. While I tend to agree that this bus driver perhaps crossed the line in terms of appropriateness, (we can't really know since we were deprived of hearing the full context of what was said), that bus driver had a right to speak her mind on the issue. What was frustrating about watching that video was how many times the child's parent kept insisting he was "forced" to drive his kid to school...a public school.

This video, again only underscores all that is wrong with public schools. It pits one persons right to speak freely against another persons right to speak freely and attempts to frame it as if somebody's rights were abrogated and derogated. While the bus driver, according to the account given, seemed to be insisting she would not allow freedom of speech if it was something she disagreed with, it is not as if that bus driver was even given the chance to actually make good on any alleged threats, as the parents of that child just simply decided to keep their child off of that bus. Not keep their child from attending the public school that fostered this, mind you, just from riding that bus.

Now the O.P. has thrown it in here to fan the flames, which is why I avoided speaking to it to begin with, but I am sorry my friend, if you are going to use this as an attempt to illustrate how you are for freedom, I am just not seeing it. What is wrong with a bus driver speaking her mind over the issues of Barak Obama, (A POTUS I have no affection for), and abortion, (an issue I personally am ambivalent towards)? Indeed, whether it was appropriate how the bus driver handled it, she seemed to wait until all other students were gone to speak her mind on the issue, and we only have the parents word that she actually attempted to solicit another student to inform on that child about racist remarks, and allegedly said she was going to eat this child alive. If there was inappropriate behavior it exists in the form of a threat, or assault, which is not a freedom of speech, and a clear abrogation of another persons right. There was no evidence to support that such a threat or assault existed, only the here say of the father.

For you, my friend, it always comes down to matters of employment and if one is employed for a government institution, then it appears that you think those employees forfeit their rights. Your arguments continually strengthen my own convictions that public schools are just a real bad idea, and this pointless news story has done the same.

LIke i said before.... IT IS WRONG FOR HIM TO SPEAK in that kind of forum on matters of religion because it leads to GOVERNMENT institutions united with religious special interests.... If only our founding members had the ability to see what corporate special interests would do.

Originally posted by IamBoon
LIke i said before.... IT IS WRONG FOR HIM TO SPEAK in that kind of forum on matters of religion because it leads to GOVERNMENT institutions united with religious special interests.... If only our founding members had the ability to see what corporate special interests would do.

Don't kid yourself, the Founders were well aware of the power of corporations in their own dealings with The East India Trading Company and corporations is not by any stretch of the imagination something new.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Attempting to question my love life, and erecting a strawman doesn't work. You made the hypothetical, i just humored you. It is up to you to figure out how to lend credence to your ridiculous hypothetical.

So you cannot answer my question then? I never questioned your love life until you said it would not violate decency laws. I would really like to understand that.

But if taking a moment to answer your completely unrelated and silly hypothetical will result in you insulting me, then i guess i can ignore your posts. I mean, really...how low are you going to stoop to try to prop up your ill conceived notion?

You never actually answered me, perhaps that is why you felt like you got insulted in response.

BTW, any sarcasm i may have included with this statement:

But then you have to ask yourself....would you do that to a paying audience? And if you did, would you expect them to come back as future customers?

Completely went over your head. Predictable? Possibly.

That was sarcasm? I am not sure you know how to apply it.

Please reference posts made by JPZ to learn why this is irrelevant and a fallacy.

JPZ is full of crap and I have proven that. If you cannot make your own points, how about bowing out then.

I asked a real question. You insist he has a constitutional right to free speech. OK, so can he get up and talk about his SEX life then? If not, why not?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes, but their means to focus the constitution in that area left holes for them to punch through.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Yes, i get it. I had just assumed that the repeated postings of the Tennesee state law regarding this by JPZ was read and understood.

My apologies. But, please, go read it. It was recently posted about on page 30-32. It will help to clarify your misunderstanding.

What a non-response. What does the Tennessee law have to do with your claim about the constitution?

Why would reading it help me understand why you invoked the constitution in your argument?

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Yes, but their means to focus the constitution in that area left holes for them to punch through.

I have no idea what you mean by this remark, except that the Constitution has been punched so full of holes it may as well be put in the Swiss cheese aisle of grocery stores. The whole "separation of church and state" rhetoric being one of the many holes that has been punched in that Constitution.

Who printed the first bibles published in America and why?
For use in public schools.
That would be Congress.

Look it up.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Yes, i get it. I had just assumed that the repeated postings of the Tennesee state law regarding this by JPZ was read and understood.

My apologies. But, please, go read it. It was recently posted about on page 30-32. It will help to clarify your misunderstanding.

What a non-response. What does the Tennessee law have to do with your claim about the constitution?

Why would reading it help me understand why you invoked the constitution in your argument?

Ok, we will cover this one time. I do not have patience for someone who feigns stupidity as a debate tactic.

This whole debate is a first amendment debate. Since we established that the intention of the writers of the first amendment was not what the supreme court interpreted, based on their own writings, then the constitutional matter was put to rest.

The only other matter left to dispute, then, would be states laws. That is how the system works. So we further established that Tennessee state law does not forbid it. In fact, it does the opposite.

I do not want to be forced to reiterate pieces of conversation that you participated in.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
So you cannot answer my question then? I never questioned your love life until you said it would not violate decency laws. I would really like to understand that.

It was YOUR hypothetical. I never claimed to understand anything about it. I gave you a sarcastic response, for the most part. You missed that. I then told you that it was a sarcastic response, due to being silly enough to warrant such, and you STILL don't get it?

You never actually answered me, perhaps that is why you felt like you got insulted in response.

It got an answer worthy of the question: half hearted and off the cuff.

Tell you what, you tell me specifically what you want my opinion on, exactly what they are hypothetically saying, and i will give you my opinion on that grouping of words. What i will not do is link such exercises to this topic, as it is not related nor fruitful (as you are not comparing apples to apples), and i will not entertain vague questions meant to distract from the topic.

That was sarcasm? I am not sure you know how to apply it.

I think you just supported my point. Over your head.

JPZ is full of crap and I have proven that. If you cannot make your own points, how about bowing out then.

I will not rehash what has been rehashed.

Persistance of insistance is not proving anything. I would say you jabs at sexual performance betray the tenuous position you find yourself in.

I asked a real question. You insist he has a constitutional right to free speech. OK, so can he get up and talk about his SEX life then? If not, why not?

Here is your real answer: that has nothing to do with the topic. It is comparing apples and bumper brackets. Quit trying to use logical fallacies. I am not that stupid.

Originally posted by IamBoon
LIke i said before.... IT IS WRONG FOR HIM TO SPEAK in that kind of forum on matters of religion because it leads to GOVERNMENT institutions united with religious special interests.... If only our founding members had the ability to see what corporate special interests would do.

This is known as the "slippery slope" fallacy. 1 action does not necessarily mean that there is going to be a degradation into another action. That is just fear mongering.

What HAS happened is that the founding fathers tried to keep the government from establishing compulsory national religion, and it "slippery sloped" into people in this thread actually saying that people (that is PEOPLE, not the principle) should keep their religious views private.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

What HAS happened is that the founding fathers tried to keep the government from establishing compulsory national religion, and it "slippery sloped" into people in this thread actually saying that people (that is PEOPLE, not the principle) should keep their religious views private.

Indeed!

The religious convictions of most humans, including the religious convictions of atheists (so they don't feel left out ) are among the most deeply held and tenacious convictions they have. That's why they become such hot-button issues. Now, keeping that in mind, if religious convictions can be suppressed and subjugated, what can't? Are political views immune? Are opinions of ANY sort immune?

In short, if religious convictions are allowed to be subject to the censorship some of these folks scream so ardently for, what is then uncensorable? If people will allow even their most deeply held convictions to be suppressed by others, ANY idea becomes fair game.

If folks want to look down a slippery slope, they probably should look in that direction.


[edit on 2010/5/28 by nenothtu]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


No one is saying to anyone to keep their religious views quiet... quite the contrary. Only during local, state and federal events should this separation occur to offset special interests. And there is no such slope that is fear-mongering. Have you ever read a history book? Not to be condescending but history repeats itself.

All religions have a HUGE vested interest in attaining power and wealth to spread its views in the name of god. That usually leads to trouble , fundamentalism , and democratic suicide. I mean , our country does a pretty bad job already and look at the rhetoric and ignorance spread by these conservatives. You can claim fear-mongering at any form of warning and it doesn't detract from its validity as a threat. You should know that!

reply to post by IamBoon

No one is saying to anyone to keep their religious views quiet... quite the contrary. Only during local, state and federal events should this separation occur to offset special interests

No one is saying to anyone to keep the press quiet...quite the contrary. Only during local, state, and federal events should this separation occur to offset special interests.

No one is saying to anyone to not peaceably assemble...quite the contrary. Only during local, state, and federal events should this separation occur to offset special interests.

No one is saying to anyone that the pursuit of happiness should be suppressed...quite the contrary. Only during local, state, and federal events should this separation occur to offset special interests.

No one is saying to anyone that the right for a redress of grievances should be kept quiet...quite the contrary. Only during local, state, and federal events should this separation occur to offset special interests.

No one is saying that a right to a jury of your peers should be suppressed...quite the contrary. Only during local, state, and federal events should this separation occur to offset special interests.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Use their own word against them.

That will maybe wake up a few.

Peeps, if the state is involved in everything, what happens to the separation of church and state?

Hell, I keep bringing up the free speech zones.

Does everyone know about the elastic clause? This is where the priests of the "color of law" infringe on your "supposed" unalienable rights. They use that component to take your rights for the "supposed" betterment of society or government as a whole.

Do not deny that NOW, they are taking your very rights of due process.

Can you deny they are implementing that now?

Where is that sand, I am getting the feeling that I want to stick my head in it.

reply to post by nenothtu

No sir, not at all. Obviously, we were raised in different areas (and unless I miss my guess, even different countries) and probably different times as well. Certainly we are going to have different experiences of life. You gave an example from your experience, and that's not in any way invalidated. Likewise, I gave an example from my experience, and as you did, elaborated on how that affected a child on into adulthood, until this very day. I in no way intended to diminish your experience, my intention was to provide a different perspective.

Understood. South Africa has been known to be lagging behind in such areas. Hence the behavior of students and teachers (mostly) on this side of the world, at the time. I won't go into detail but Afrikaaner NG Extremists were pretty much still ruling the country back in 1995 (I was seven). And a child dare not step out of line, especially in a religious manner.

Anyz- Your response was appreciated and I believe it was sincere. Just for the record (not that it really matters) I am female. Hence all the pink,lol. Somehow I don't dig people thinking I'm a guy....

Peace.

[edit on 21/04/10 by jinx880101]