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

reply to post by Reflection

I never once advocated that "certain people" should forfeit their rights. I said the STATE should not have the same rights as it's citizens in order to keep an unbiased state to protect our rights.

Yes you did, and Bigfatfurrytexan quoted you and now I will too:

When you are representing the state, I believe that you should absolutely have to give up some of your rights, because when you are representing the state, you are no longer an individual, you are the STATE.

Read your own words carefully, and do not seek to equivocate and attempt to explain them away. Either you stand by those words or you regret writing them, but you not only advocated the forfeiture of rights regarding certain people, you declared that such forfeiture "should absolutely" be surrendered.

Your pretentious assertions that judges set aside bias is either borne of ignorance, or just willful obfuscation. It matters not which one it is, you are incorrect in your assertions that judges set aside bias. Your religious baiting is your game and it clearly ignores that many government officials within any state have religious beliefs, which would be their bias, and again I point to the Tennessee Constitution, Article IX, Section 2 to point out that in order to be a government official in that state, believing in God, or a Creator is a prerequisite for holding office.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Reflection

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What part of that do you not understand? Why do you ignore the part after the comma?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

You act as though simple recitations of the documents is the final legal word. It is not. You are limited in many ways, so that you cannot legally ' express' your ' beliefs' if they cause certain things to happen.

As for not restricting religion, read the cases where LEGITIMATE churches and believers are legally forbidden from practicing aspects of their beliefs. The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, which was officially recognized as a bona fide entity by the Federal government, has as a practice the use of cannabis as a sacrament. 3

The federal courts ruled that the CSA overruled religious use of otherwise baaned substances, and so members cannot partake legally. Of course in another case, the Supreme Court decided that an American Indian tribe could use psychedelics as a ritual legally. The difference?

the only difference was the number of people involved. There are few Indians in that tribe and they use a drug that is not widely used. If the Court had allowed, which by any strict definitioon they should have, cannabis users , they feared, would simply join the church and thus be exempt from the CSA and local laws forbidding possession .

the Courts knew that they were being hippocrites; they knew that they had no legal basis for denying one recognized religion from a less ' harmful' substance while allowing such use merely because of the liklehood that such approval would not cause undesired effects. They had no PROOF of such, of course, but being right wing morons they simply viloated the Constitution and their own past case law and did so for law enforcement reasons and not for legal ones.

There are always restrictions on behavior, no matter what one believes.

you may believe that you have a right to shout ' fire! ' in a crowded theatre, but the law says otjherwise. There are NO absolutes in Rights.

Alrighty then. I've heard this lame "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" smoke screen one time too many in this thread now. Can someone tell me precisely when shouting "fire!" for the purpose of creating panic became free expression of a deeply held belief?

The example of how the SCOTUS bans sacraments for one religion while allowing them for another is a pretty good example of governmental hypocrisy at it's finest. If you ask me, they failed to separate church and state there, too.

And folks think these people should be allowed to determine who gets to say what, and where?

reply to post by richierich

You act as though simple recitations of the documents is the final legal word. It is not. You are limited in many ways, so that you cannot legally ' express' your ' beliefs' if they cause certain things to happen.

The fallacious argument that causing others harm is somehow a restriction on freedom is nothing more than obfuscation. No one has the right to cause another undue harm. This means that slander is not a right, and it means that inciting riots is not a right. Rights are not being limited when one is held accountable for slander or inciting riots because there is no right to do so, and is in no way a restriction on rights. This game is often played by those who advocate "regulating" inalienable rights, but it is a game of fallacious reasoning, nothing more.

As for not restricting religion, read the cases where LEGITIMATE churches and believers are legally forbidden from practicing aspects of their beliefs. The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, which was officially recognized as a bona fide entity by the Federal government, has as a practice the use of cannabis as a sacrament.

This idea that the federal government has a right to declare what is, and what is not a "bona fide" religion flies in the face of the First Amendments Establishment Clause. How ironic is that? The whole nonsense of declaring a religion a "bona fide" one is practiced by the IRS, a tax collection agency for Christ sakes. If religions want to enter into a contractual agreement with a tax collection agency that is their choice and right to do, but this notion that the IRS has sole authority on deciding what is and what is not a "bona fide" religion is not authorized by Constitution, and since Congress has no authority to make any such authorization, they can not by legislative fiat grant this authority to the IRS.

Your examples of existing drug laws seeking to trump rights only points to the dubious legality of those laws, and indeed, more and more people are waking up to their illegality. Rights are absolute, and your reference of Schenk v. United States, and the opinion rendered by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, regarding yelling fire in a crowded theater speaks to inciting a riot, which is not a right.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Oh really?

"Tennessee Constitution, Article IX, Section 2 to point out that in order to be a government official in that state, believing in God, or a Creator is a prerequisite for holding office."

So I guess that means that as a government official they must give up the right to not believe in God. A right that all the rest of us hold. Hmmmm...that's not very consistent with what you have been saying. State reps should have all the same rights as everyone else...?

It's a BS prerequisite, but one none the less.

I could go on and on about how the belief in God does not give someone morality and the lack of belief in God does not make someone immoral, but I'll save that for another thread.

I don't regret anything I said and I stand by what I've said. I don't believe the state should be biased. I understand that humans make up the state and have bias, but it should be their duty to put their bias aside. The line has to be drawn and if they step over it, there should be consequences. There will never be a perfectly objective system, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.

reply to post by Reflection

So I guess that means that as a government official they must give up the right to not believe in God. A right that all the rest of us hold. Hmmmm...that's not very consistent with what you have been saying. State reps should have all the same rights as everyone else...?

Serving as a government official is not an inalienable right, it is a privilege granted by the people. You do not have a right to serve as a government official, and if you wanted to be a Governor, or a member of the legislature, you would have to be elected by the people. In some instances you would have to go through the same electoral process as a judge, and where other judges are appointed, they are done so by elected officials. There is no inalienable right to hold office in government, and there are indeed many restrictions placed upon holding office by both the federal Constitution, and those of the several states. Either your own reasoning is twisted, or you are playing games, but reasonable minds will not be fooled by this pretzel logic you offer.



[edit on 28-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by sirnex

You are so wrong, if you had any knowledge of history you would know that the founders were devout in every way. Little things like our rights are endowed by our creator. Who do you think they were talking about?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by bagari
Some might call that a lack of tolerance on your part - a big no-no in today's politically correct society. Of course, it's quite clear that it's alright to show a lack of tolerance toward christians but no other group.

What makes you think I'm not Christian? Plenty of Christianity out there that doesn't support the teachings of Jesus. Sounds more like intolerance to anything but Christianity.

I agree with the "intolerance to anything but christianity."

If you were islamic or jewish and tried to do a public prayer, it would be "more than a big deal" IMHO. And, I think those groups would simply not even bother trying such a "stunt" because it would cause uproar.

Freedom of religion also means that we don't hear agnostics saying "let's have a moment of non-silence for the god we are unsure exists!" at public events and such. According to some of people here, though, to say such a thing would be acceptable, unless you want to create a double standard. Of course a double standard in the law is not "just" a "double standard," it is an illegal violation of the law.

You can't say prayers in public schools and such for the same reason that christians would not want to be subject to hearing islamic prayers: it's not right to subject everyone to the religious beliefs of one group.

You have plenty of time to get together to pray in personal time with people of a like belief.

On a slightly related note, in one of the public parks in my city, there are crosses and memorial stones. They are made of granite and thus look like mini-tombstones, and some even have colored pictures of the deceased embedded into them! In this area, it is acceptable (maybe legal?). But, imagine going to enjoy a walk in the park, and looking at the trees planted with these memorials. As I said, some have crosses. The memorial stones have dates on them and names. It's disgusting. This does not belong in a park in these numbers. I understand that some people die, and the community might agree to name a public building after them or dedicate a tree to them, but here people are planting trees and decorating them with angels, crosses, and memorial stones in a park. Some even have solar-powered accent lights. A park is not the place for these things. In my opinion neither is the side of a public road.

reply to post by glitchinmymatrix

If you were islamic or jewish and tried to do a public prayer, it would be "more than a big deal" IMHO. And, I think those groups would simply not even bother trying such a "stunt" because it would cause uproar.

Exactly. But some people don't understand this and think for some reason that this is an infringement on their rights. Can you imagine what havoc would be caused if everyone was left to worship whenever, wherever in public places. Especially with the diversity of culture in America- you would have some truly pissed off Christians if Muslims were allowed to preach and praise to anyone they choose in public. The thing is, they are allowed, they just don't. The only time these 'rights' are limited is when you are an employee of the government or government run corporation/ institution, because it would be biased as the government is meant to be completely neutral.

And if you are employed by the government, you are still allowed to believe in whatever god you choose. You are free to praise him/her/it at your church of choice or at home- just not at work - which would be a government entity.

How difficult is this to understand?

reply to post by jinx880101

Can you imagine what havoc would be caused if everyone was left to worship whenever, wherever in public places.

No, I can't imagine the havoc. What sort of havoc are you imagining?

Especially with the diversity of culture in America- you would have some truly pissed off Christians if Muslims were allowed to preach and praise to anyone they choose in public.

Muslims have an inalienable right to preach in public just as Christians do, and because they have this inalienable right, the government can neither "allow", nor disallow this practice.

The thing is, they are allowed, they just don't.

The thing is, they don't need any allowance, they simply have the right to do so, and some most certainly do. I live in a metropolis of over 9 million people, including Muslims, and I have seen many Muslims preach and pray in public.

The only time these 'rights' are limited is when you are an employee of the government or government run corporation/ institution, because it would be biased as the government is meant to be completely neutral.

Inalienable rights can not be "limited", and this nonsensical mystical incantation of bias is just that, nonsensical and sounds every bit as mystical as any Christian can, Muslim can, or Buddhist can. Members of Congress pray before going into session, numerous Presidents in their State of the Union address have declared "God Bless America", and the same with Governors, and state legislatures, it is not just erroneous to claim they can't, they in fact do.

How difficult is this to understand?

How difficult is it to understand your fantastical fiction? Not difficult to understand at all, but good storytellers are able to make the implausible plausible, you have failed miserably with your fiction to do so.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Muslims have an inalienable right to preach in public just as Christians do, and because they have this inalienable right, the government can neither "allow", nor disallow this practice.

Exactly.

The thing is, they don't need any allowance, they simply have the right to do so, and some most certainly do. I live in a metropolis of over 9 million people, including Muslims, and I have seen many Muslims preach and pray in public.

I bet they are not government employees preaching at their place of work.

Inalienable rights can not be "limited", and this nonsensical mystical incantation of bias is just that, nonsensical and sounds every bit as mystical as any Christian can, Muslim can, or Buddhist can. Members of Congress pray before going into session, numerous Presidents in their State of the Union address have declared "God Bless America", and the same with Governors, and state legislatures, it is not just erroneous to claim they can't, they in fact do.

That is because the term 'God' is neutral. They are not saying- 'Jesus bless America.' And yes, they may pray in private before going into session. They may not preach and pray during session.

How difficult is it to understand your fantastical fiction? Not difficult to understand at all, but good storytellers are able to make the implausible plausible, you have failed miserably with your fiction to do so.

Oh please- grow up. I couldn't care less what you think- And I will not be phased by your attempt at a personal attack.

reply to post by jinx880101


"At work"....lets apply this phrase to the OP.

The "principle" (which is what he does during regular hours) is volunteering at an event put on by the athletic department of a school, in a for profit venture. They are not representing this event as any kind of educational event, and as such it is labelled "extra curricular".

And people are still simply saying that he is pushing a religion in school. That could not be farther from the truth. school time is definitely not a for profit venture, and it doesn't occur at 8pm on a Friday night. We could enumerate literally dozens of behaviors that would not be deemed appropriate in a school, but fully encouraged at this for profit event.

Why be so descriptive in other ways, yet pull a shortcut by simply saying that he is preaching in school?

I have been very hard on people for using hypotheticals in this thread. Mostly due to the lack of parity between the hypothetical and reality. But I would like for you to think about exactly how far we should censor people. As well, this "hypothetical" is a real event from a small West Texas city, witnessed by myself. It represents several such instances, again witnessed by myself.

Here goes....At this years Relay For Life event in the community, the school district athletic department enters a team, based on the death of a coach earlier in the year to Lymphoma.

During the event, while sharing stories, several of the coaches walk with relatives who have survived cancer, as well as their own laps for their teams entry.

During several conversations, some of these coaches are heard referencing the faith that they had in God during their mothers/aunts/uncles/wives/etc treatment. Maybe during a speech, they reference several religious concepts while talking about the fight that their coach friend had with cancer.

These were school officials, representing the schools athletic department due to the death of a coworker in said department. Throughout this event they made open and vocal references to faith while discussing their cancer treatments, or families treatments, etc.

is this, in your opinion, crossing the line? Should all these coaches now be fired to supporting religion? If not, why move the target, and how do you reconcile that with the concept of "Rule of law"?

[edit on 29-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


If the event took place on school grounds or school sports fields- (which are government property) the same laws count as the principal is still an employee of the government on government owned land.

In Good News Club v Milford Central School (533 US 98 [2001]), the Supreme Court ruled that a school may not exclude a religious club from using facilities in the school, after school hours, just because the club is religious in nature.

In other words, if the Chess Club can use school property for after school meetings, the Good News Club must also be permitted to use school property. To deny them access is to discriminate on the basis of the Club's religious viewpoint, which is a violation of the Club's free speech.

The point behind a policy to ban religious organizations in this way was to avoid Establishment Clause issues. But the Court found that it was clear that since the Club would meet after school hours, there was no way that it could be reasonably concluded that the school was endorsing religion.

The Good News decision is one of many Supreme Court decisions that weave a tangled web when it comes to school prayer. One thing is clear: the Supreme Court has consistently said that a school must not endorse religion or any particular sect of a religion. The trick is in the interpretation of this edict. Often times, as in the Good News case, schools have gone too far, failing the Lemon Test's second prong.

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."

The Court also looked at the effect of the prayer on students. It noted that discourse on issue like prayer in school, is positive, as is tolerating speech you disagree with. But the school environment, religious speech carries with it a "risk of indirect coercion."

What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy. The Court has also tackled the stickier issue of prayer during extracurricular school-sponsored activities. In Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (530 US 290 [2000]), the Court ruled on this issue.

At Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas, one student was elected as student council chaplain. This student delivered a prayer over the PA system before home football games. Some Catholic and Mormon students and their parents sued the school district over the practice. After the suit was filed, the school held a referendum to let the students decide if the prayer should continue, and if so, to elect someone to deliver the prayer. The student body voted to continue the practice.

The District Court allowed the prayer only if it was non-sectarian, but the Circuit Court ruled both the old and new schemes to be unconstitutional. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed. Both sides of the issue referred to the previous Lee case. The school district argued that since the prayer was being led by a student, and not by a member of the clergy invited to the school by an administrator.

The Court said that it agreed that private-lead speech was much less restricted than public-sponsored speech, but it disagreed that the student's speech was private. These invocations are authorized by a government policy and take place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events... [T]he school allows only one student, the same student for the entire season, to give the invocation. The statement or invocation, moreover, is subject to particular regulations that confine the content and topic of the student's message.

As with the Lee case's directives for the delivery of the invocation, the Court was troubled by the student-based election system, which was put in place to ensure that there was popular support for the plan: Santa Fe's student election system ensures that only those messages deemed "appropriate" under the District's policy may be delivered. That is, the majoritarian process implemented by the District guarantees, by definition, that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced.... [the] student election does nothing to protect minority views but rather places the students who hold such views at the mercy of the majority.

Despite all of the above, the school district had a trump card in its attempt to continue to allow prayer at the games: attendance at the football games is not compulsory. The Court was unconvinced — they noted that some students were compelled to attend games, such as cheerleaders, band members, and members of the team itself. The Court also raised the issue of peer pressure as making attendance less than completely voluntary. Leaving all of that aside, the Court still felt the policy violated precedent: "Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship."

Cases like Good News seem like wins for religion, and cases like Lee and Santa Fe seem like losses. But the Court would probably argue that they are all wins for religious freedom, even if the practical application seems to point in different directions. The details make all the difference, and taken as a whole, the body of decisions about school prayer do follow a single line of reasoning.

[edit on 21/04/10 by jinx880101]

Originally posted by jinx880101



I bet they are not government employees preaching at their place of work.

Nor was the man in the OP. He is a volunteer for a for profit organization. Or maybe he is paid....so schools do that, too. In my high school we paid our English teacher for the freshman to do it, due to his voice.

you will have a hard time convincing anyone that the principle shows up to work at the football field. Most often, these football fields aren't even owned by the school district, but rather rented by the athletic department.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by jinx880101

I bet they are not government employees preaching at their place of work.

Okay, I'll take that bet. Ante up, sweetheart.

05/28/2010 Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin

We believe in One God Father of all Creator and source of life for all.

To say You are one is to hint at your perfection. To call you a trinity of persons is to bless you in your oneness of relationship. Yours is continual communication and relating.

We beg for your grace and power that we may be one. Remove all division and discord which cause dysfunction and confusion in our souls.

Make of our diversity a new strength; that will bind us to one another in purpose.

Heal our understandable wounds of the past and all paralyzing fears of the future. Help us to develop better skills in relating to others.

Shape our differing perspectives by respectful dialogue so we may be unified in serving the common good of this nation and be a light to the world.

chaplain.house.gov...

This was the opening prayer for The House of Representatives before proceedings yesterday, May 28th, 2010. It was not a private prayer, but was given by the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin right there in the Chamber, openly and without shame.

This link provides historical context to government officials praying or speaking to Jesus publicly:

www.house.gov...

This link takes you straight to the website of the Office of the Chaplain for The United States Representatives:

chaplain.house.gov...

Okay, so pay up darlin'. You owe me at least a tall cool soda or lemonade.

Originally posted by jinx880101
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

If the event took place on school grounds or school sports fields- (which are government property) the same laws count as the principal is still an employee of the government on government owned land.

OK...not counting that, like i have repeatedly said, the stadiums are often not owned by the schools. They are owned by corporations, such as economic development boards, or true companies (Grande Communications owns the one in Midland, TX).

But, even given that....you get that belief from the first amendment. the very same one that says right after that, that you cannot limit free speech? Since, in your interpretation, those two phrases are totally conflicting...could your interpretation not be at fault? Shake off your years of programming, and think about it. Seriously...just think about it. The words are there, the logic is there and obvious.

If this is how you think the constitution is written, wow. please do not run for public office. I do not say that to be mean. i say it in all sincerity, out of love for my country. It is far enough astray from its principles already.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Okay, I'll take that bet. Ante up, sweetheart. 05/28/2010 Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin

We believe in One God Father of all Creator and source of life for all. To say You are one is to hint at your perfection. To call you a trinity of persons is to bless you in your oneness of relationship. Yours is continual communication and relating. We beg for your grace and power that we may be one. Remove all division and discord which cause dysfunction and confusion in our souls. Make of our diversity a new strength; that will bind us to one another in purpose. Heal our understandable wounds of the past and all paralyzing fears of the future. Help us to develop better skills in relating to others. Shape our differing perspectives by respectful dialogue so we may be unified in serving the common good of this nation and be a light to the world. chaplain.house.gov...

This was the opening prayer for The House of Representatives before proceedings yesterday, May 28th, 2010. It was not a private prayer, but was given by the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin right there in the Chamber, openly and without shame.

One God Father of all Creator and source of life for all.

It does not specify- Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Mohamed.....etc, etc.

Please!

reply to post by jinx880101




I am sorry...i really didn't mean to get sucked into this right now. i was just reading.


That must be a gift. Moving the target like that.

So, the fact that he is pushing ANY religion all of a sudden isn't bothersome? What about the poor atheists? or agnostic? how about those satanists....they despise God, right?

Consistency. Find some consistency. Without it, how do you expect to be seen as credible?

Just to add: he is a Christian chaplain, giving a Christian prayer of "Father" and "God". The two Christian names for their deity. Jesus is a different facet of said deity, and not a requirement for prayer...at least not in every denomination.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

OK...not counting that, like i have repeatedly said, the stadiums are often not owned by the schools. They are owned by corporations, such as economic development boards, or true companies (Grande Communications owns the one in Midland, TX). But, even given that....you get that belief from the first amendment. the very same one that says right after that, that you cannot limit free speech? Since, in your interpretation, those two phrases are totally conflicting...could your interpretation not be at fault? Shake off your years of programming, and think about it. Seriously...just think about it. The words are there, the logic is there and obvious. If this is how you think the constitution is written,

I am not arguing whether the constitution is right or wrong- or if the laws in place are right or wrong. What they are at this present time- is just what they are. If you don't like the constitution, take it up with your government. It has nothing to do with my conditioning or programming. Maybe you should take your own advice.

wow. please do not run for public office. I do not say that to be mean. i say it in all sincerity, out of love for my country. It is far enough astray from its principles already.

No worries- I will do no such thing.

You might want to read my edit on my previous post...

reply to post by jinx880101


You clearly did not link the page I provided that gives examples of past prayers invoking Jesus' name. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you are squelch on a bet?