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

The ignorance of history in this thread is astounding. Congress paid for the first bibles published in America so they could used in public schools. Muslims are building two Mosques on ground zero, one is a 13 story $150 million mega Mosque. I have yet to hear a peep out of the ACLU. Now if some Christian group wanted to erect a $100 cross on ground zero they would be up to their armpits in lawsuits. Conclusion: Left-wing anti-Christian bigots are running the country.

Originally posted by genomega
The ignorance of history in this thread is astounding. Congress paid for the first bibles published in America so they could used in public schools. Muslims are building two Mosques on ground zero, one is a 13 story $150 million mega Mosque. I have yet to hear a peep out of the ACLU. Now if some Christian group wanted to erect a $100 cross on ground zero they would be up to their armpits in lawsuits. Conclusion: Left-wing anti-Christian bigots are running the country.

I wouldn't quite say that. I would say it is more about there being a huge amount of pandering. It is vogue to not be Christian. There are all sorts of new age beliefs that attract the youth. And attracting youth is what is desired so you can appear hip and relevant.

isn't that what we keep hearing? That the Dems are percieved as "hip and relevant"?

There is not a single action undertaken by an elected official that isn't meant to do at least 1 of 2 things:

- get votes

- get rich

Something i would like to have readers consider.

One of the biggest complaints people have about Christianity is that it is "shoved down their throat". This is definitely a sentiment i understand, as i do not answer the door for teen boys in suits riding bikes.

But this is a part of the Christian faith. In fact, it is such a part that it caused the Church to become one of the worst tyrants in all of history. Christians like to be overt. It is demanded of them in their religious texts. They are ccommanded to convert people via Church doctrine. Not supporting the Church can, and has, cause excommunication, which is devastating to such systems within Christianity (Mormons do similar, although most protestants don't do such, but use social pressure within the congregation).

So an exercise of their religion is to be overt about their love of Jesus, and to try to explain it to you so that you can be as happy and in love with him as they are. Granted, in the past it was done with murder and torture....but in the US it is only legal to do it to the point where the person they talk to decide to tell them to shut up, or walk away, etc.

It would seem to be wholly unconstitutional to not allow them to practice their religion as deemed fit by the doctrine of their officially recognized church. If this church commands its people to spread the "Good news of Christ", then it is beyond the ability of the government to ask them to stop. In the same way that I must allow a Muslim time to pray, despite lost productivity.

The logic that supports the suspension of rights due to religious reasons is wholly unsound. It conflicts directly with both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Edit to add: I find pushy Christians peddling their good news to be obnoxious as much as the next guy. Honestly. It bugs me, and i avoid them like the plague when i hear it. But there is nothing illegal about being obnoxious, even if it will make people not like you.

And i will remind you: When someone tries to shove religion down your throat, it is best to just close your mouth and walk away.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by Anti-Evil


This is EXACTLY why we need a separation of church and state.

This religious zealot has chosen to force her religion on everyone.

She should be fired.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

It would seem to be wholly unconstitutional to not allow them to practice their religion as deemed fit by the doctrine of their officially recognized church. If this church commands its people to spread the "Good news of Christ", then it is beyond the ability of the government to ask them to stop. In the same way that I must allow a Muslim time to pray, despite lost productivity.

And if my religion required that I remove others possessions (steal) without their consent and sell them to promote my religion?

What if a religion required that followers either convert unbelievers or said unbelievers must be killed even if it requires the believers own death ? Oh wait, we call them terrorists.

I understand what you're suggesting but the reality is that their rights must end where ours begin.

Religion has no place in government, in any way, shape or form.

Anyone working under the government should not be aloud to establish their religious views in a public forum whilst working under their official capacity. No citizen should be subjected to the religious views of any governmental worker, no matter how seemingly insignificant their job may seem. A government dictated by religious doctrine is the worse form of government I can possibly imagine, I would personally rather live under a secular dictatorship. If we allow government and government employees to dictate laws and justice accordingly to their religious beliefs then we will be creating something much more tyrannical than what many claim we have now.

Religion has no place in government, in any way, shape or form.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

It would seem to be wholly unconstitutional to not allow them to practice their religion as deemed fit by the doctrine of their officially recognized church. If this church commands its people to spread the "Good news of Christ", then it is beyond the ability of the government to ask them to stop. In the same way that I must allow a Muslim time to pray, despite lost productivity.

And if my religion required that I remove others possessions (steal) without their consent and sell them to promote my religion?

Stealing is not a right. If you steal, you have a clear victim: the person stole from.

Don't be silly, and don't turn my apples into oranges. It isn't going to be productive.

What if a religion required that followers either convert unbelievers or said unbelievers must be killed even if it requires the believers own death ? Oh wait, we call them terrorists.

Killing someone is not a right. When you kill someone, there is a clear victim.

I think i even addressed this specifically in the post you are quoting. Was it not clear?

I understand what you're suggesting but the reality is that their rights must end where ours begin.

They should. You are right.

They have a right to free speech, you have a right to walk away from free speech.

I agree that lesson plans should not include political or religious messages. But i will never agree that the right to "free religion" trumps a persons right to free speech. They are equals, and must be treated as such.

edit to add: you do realize that, despite popular misconception, we do not have a right to not be annoyed by others speech, right? Obnoxious speech is still "free".

[edit on 30-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by sirnex

Religion has no place in government, in any way, shape or form.

Anyone working under the government should not be aloud to establish their religious views in a public forum whilst working under their official capacity. No citizen should be subjected to the religious views of any governmental worker, no matter how seemingly insignificant their job may seem. A government dictated by religious doctrine is the worse form of government I can possibly imagine, I would personally rather live under a secular dictatorship. If we allow government and government employees to dictate laws and justice accordingly to their religious beliefs then we will be creating something much more tyrannical than what many claim we have now.

Religion has no place in government, in any way, shape or form.

Your opnion, while put in bold and bold red font, is just your opinion.

Persistence of insistence is not a debate.

reply to post by sirnex


Don't worry about these guys replying to you that keep insisting it's about the first amendment rights of the principal. It's not, it's about what the roles of our government should be and the regulations on government workers put in place to ensure they stay true to those roles. No one's rights are being violated. It's regulation, not a "law" as I made the mistake of calling it. A regulation that will, if violated, cause someone to loose their job. Just like I am free to insult a customer, but I will be fired for it.

These regulations are in place for all public schools because of supreme court decisions. Check out jinx880101's last reply on page 37 of this thread. It pretty much sums it up.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

And if my religion required that I remove others possessions (steal) without their consent and sell them to promote my religion?

Stealing is not a right.

According to you and your beliefs.

If you steal, you have a clear victim: the person stole from.

Who decides what is clear ?

What if a religion required that followers either convert unbelievers or said unbelievers must be killed even if it requires the believers own death ? Oh wait, we call them terrorists.

Killing someone is not a right. When you kill someone, there is a clear victim.

Again, it's not right according to your beliefs but not the beliefs of certain religions.

They have a right to free speech, you have a right to walk away from free speech.

If I'm forced to walk away, they're rights supersede mine.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


First off, the Supreme Court decision that allows prayer before a session in Congress is controversial. Second, it clearly states that it must be a prayer that is in harmony with other religions. Same thing goes for the President when he says God bless America. It doesn't specify any particular religion.

Those are some gray areas that we can continue to debate, but in the case of the op, there is no gray area. He clearly stepped over the line and was well aware that he did.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


So, are you saying we should allow religious doctrine to control governmental function? Are you kidding me? You would have to be a complete moron with a hollow skull to allow religion to run government.

Like it or not, the United Sates Government is Secular. Religion has no purpose in government nor should ever be allowed to dictate how government should function. Doing so would create the worst form of tyranny.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by sirnex]

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by sirnex

 

Don't worry about these guys replying to you that keep insisting it's about the first amendment rights of the principal. It's not, it's about what the roles of our government should be and the regulations on government workers put in place to ensure they stay true to those roles. No one's rights are being violated. It's regulation, not a "law" as I made the mistake of calling it. A regulation that will, if violated, cause someone to loose their job. Just like I am free to insult a customer, but I will be fired for it.

These regulations are in place for all public schools because of supreme court decisions. Check out jinx880101's last reply on page 37 of this thread. It pretty much sums it up.

Christ, without laws and regulations in place, we could do whatever the hell we wanted. I say we should insult customers and then take the employers to court for infringing on our right to free speech when they fire us. Same damn argument these tools are spewing.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

So, are you saying we should allow religious doctrine to control governmental function? Are you kidding me? You would have to be a complete moron with a hollow skull to allow religion to run government.

No one has said that. Those are your words, and it seems to be completely irrelevant to the conversation, as it is a strawman.

Like it or not, the United Sates Government is Secular. Religion has no purpose in government nor should ever be allowed to dictate how government should function. Doing so would create the worst form of tyranny.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by sirnex]

Yes, religion running government would be a bad thing, given the way religions work.

But a principle being used during a for profit venture, that is completely and totally obviously not the classroom, is not religion running government.

It is no different than the president making a very public appearance at church. Or campaigning via a church/in a church.

There is a separation that should occur, to prevent religious tyranny. But you cannot separate it to the degree that it has been while still allowing the rights of the individual.

But all of that is philosophical. It is not legal. In this country we are ruled by law. The law used to stifle religious speech is applied wrongfully, as stated by the very pen that wrote the law. If we are taking the laws and twisting to meet the agendas of people with unconstitutional views, are we really ruled by law?

You may not like the FACT that the first amendment applies protection for what this principle does, but it is the fact. The part about religion does not apply to him, as he is not congress (it states "Congress shall not", not "Government employee shall not"), and it goes on to guarantee that Congress shall pass no law that prevents his free speech, which it has not.

What this is based on in judicial opinion, which has violated the "freedom of speech" portion of the first amendment, not to mention its own function, by creating law where there was none. It is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

And if my religion required that I remove others possessions (steal) without their consent and sell them to promote my religion?

Stealing is not a right.

According to you and your beliefs.

No, according to our Constitution. That is the basis of this argument. If you wish to make it a philosophical discussion completely unrelated to Constitutional rights, make a thread on it and invite me.

If you steal, you have a clear victim: the person stole from.

Who decides what is clear ?

The Constitution. The judge who hears the case and makes the decision on damages.

What if a religion required that followers either convert unbelievers or said unbelievers must be killed even if it requires the believers own death ? Oh wait, we call them terrorists.

Killing someone is not a right. When you kill someone, there is a clear victim.

Again, it's not right according to your beliefs but not the beliefs of certain religions.

There is a clear victim. The Constitution applies.

They have a right to free speech, you have a right to walk away from free speech.

If I'm forced to walk away, they're rights supersede mine.

No one forced you to walk away. You can stand there and ignore them. You can reciprocate. You are free to make several choices. Just as they are.

This, once again, is Constitutional.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


This is from jinx880101 on page 37 of this thread.

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."

Basically they are saying that school sponsored events, like football games, are under the same rules as the classroom.



[edit on 30-5-2010 by Reflection]

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by sirnex

 

Don't worry about these guys replying to you that keep insisting it's about the first amendment rights of the principal. It's not, it's about what the roles of our government should be and the regulations on government workers put in place to ensure they stay true to those roles. No one's rights are being violated. It's regulation, not a "law" as I made the mistake of calling it. A regulation that will, if violated, cause someone to loose their job. Just like I am free to insult a customer, but I will be fired for it.

These regulations are in place for all public schools because of supreme court decisions. Check out jinx880101's last reply on page 37 of this thread. It pretty much sums it up.

Christ, without laws and regulations in place, we could do whatever the hell we wanted. I say we should insult customers and then take the employers to court for infringing on our right to free speech when they fire us. Same damn argument these tools are spewing.

If you work for me, you are free to insult my customers. And i am free to no longer pay you to work for me, and I am free to have you removed from my property, and prevent your future arrival to said property.

I see that you are not using sound logic, even in this simple little analogy that you attempted to apply to your argument (and did not succeed at).

Perhaps this same faulty logic is responsible for your desire to impose tyranny on mans unalienable rights?

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

This is from jinx880101 on page 37 of this thread.

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."

To address the whole peer pressure issue first....


...i do not buy peer pressure as a Constitutional argument. It completely ignores the individuality and accountability required for men. It is a synonym for "mob mentality".

I also have issue with the whole concept of "legal precedent" as no where in the Constitution was our Judiciary given the power to create law. They were given the power to tell Congress when they were making unconstitutional laws, and to interpret laws on a case by case basis when hearing arguments by The People. The concept of legal precedent results from the desire of courts to thin their caseload, in my opinion. Laziness is not an excuse to give powers that are not in the Constitution to the Judiciary.

And i further believe that the idea that conducting a prayer is in anyway coercive. I choose to participate for the simple fact that positive thought must carry with it some value, and if not then "nothing ventured, nothing gained". However, that is just my methodology.

The court is ignoring the fact that Congress did not pass a law relating to religion, and because of this they have imposed tyranny on The People.

Originally posted by Reflection
Basically they are saying that school sponsored events, like football games, are under the same rules as the classroom.



[edit on 30-5-2010 by Reflection]

To address this. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that religion cannot be in the classroom. It says "Congress shall pass no law". Congress, with a capital "C". It applies to only 1 governmental body.

The choice of having the religion in the classroom is left up to the states to the decide. The Supreme Court making this decision is, in itself, unconstitutional. There is no wording in the Constitution that prohibits the presentation of religious studies in the classroom. Congress still has not passed a law relating to such.

The State law of Tennessee certainly DOES appear to support what this principle has done. But it still does not address it, either.

Therefore, if there is no law restricting the right, the right exists. For the Judiciary to stifle a right that no law prohibits is the very definition of Tyranny.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Your right, one of the roles of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and ensure that it is applied properly. I sure as hell don't want Congress interpreting it! Are you kidding me!

Precedent probably does have a lot to do with workload, but what better idea do you have? Put more workload on Congress? Please, they hardly get anything done with the workload they already have.

We need the Supreme Court to interpret the laws of the Constitution because, as great as it is, it is over 200 years old and times change. The Constitution is not a perfect document and could not possibly foresee issues 200 years into the future.

In this particular case the Supreme Court has ruled that prayer by the school in the classroom or at a football game is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Whether you agree with the system or laws really makes no difference. There are a lot of laws and regulations that I don't agree with too. It is what it is, but you have the right to speak your mind and either run for office or vote for people that represent your ideas. That's democracy, not tyranny.