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

Originally posted by Reflection
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.

It is tyranny when unalienable rights are suppressed.

And it is unConstitutional for the Judiciary to create law via precedence.

Voting will make no difference. Law is not decided in Congress. Law is decided in the Supreme Court. Apparently they can ignore the law and create a whole new law by calling it "interpretation".

And nowhere did i propose to put any of that in Congress hands. That is a strawman.

My words are that only Congress can make law. And that precedence represents laziness being allowed to steer the most powerful nation to have ever existed. That scares the hell out of me. And it explains why our liberties are being lost under tyranny.

Edit to add: it most certainly does make a difference that i disagree. You cannot say that my disagreement makes no difference, and then say that i can make a difference by voting.

My opinion matters 100%, as a citizen of this nation. My vote may not matter...but that is a whole 'nuther topic.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

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?

WTF are you on? This case is NO DIFFERENT. The principal works for the government, the government made policy where the principal can no longer preach the deity of choice/indoctrination.

This case is NO DIFFERENT than what you are describing.

Your a complete tool if you think this is equatable to having the principals freedoms being infringed upon. In order for your argument to be valid, then I have to argue by default that you would be infringing upon my freedom of speech if you were to fire me if I voiced my opinions of a customer.

The principal is free to talk about, worship, pray, cut himself in ritual when NOT ON THE JOB. No rights are being infringed upon, common sense, use it.

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.

I actually agree with the latter half of this post, just not the first half. I italicized the part I can agree with. I won't stifle anyone for mere expression. I don't care who they are, what they think, who they work for, or where they are. That's what occurred in the instance the OP mentions. The Principal wasn't 'dictating laws and justice', nor is it in his power to do so. He was making a statement of belief, just words, without the force of power, or power of enforcement.

I'm not going to live quietly under ANY sort of dictatorship, either religious OR secular. That would seem to be the root notion promoted by the phrase 'dictate laws and justice'.

"If we allow government and government employees to dictate laws and justice accordingly to their religious beliefs" Then their religion is no longer a religion, they have made a political system of it, actually more like a political party, and that particular sect should then become subject to the same registrations, fees, and limitations as are imposed on any other political party. Of course, this would produce more divisions amongst most religions, what with all the backpedalling and refutation involved, in order to establish oneself NOT a political hack (thus retaining the protections afforded to religions), but that can't really be helped.

The christians themselves will quote to you "render unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesars" at tax time, so they shouldn't have any trouble understanding this. They seem to be the ones you folks are the MOST scared of, yet their book has the original concept of separation of church and state, which I've just paraphrased for you.

Simply speaking is NOT imposition of law, nor is it imposition or determination of justice, and is therefore protected by the First Amendment, any time, any place, by any one. It is not subject to limitation by Congress, as that amendment explicitly states.

[edit on 2010/5/30 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

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?

WTF are you on? This case is NO DIFFERENT. The principal works for the government, the government made policy where the principal can no longer preach the deity of choice/indoctrination.

This case is NO DIFFERENT than what you are describing.

Your a complete tool if you think this is equatable to having the principals freedoms being infringed upon. In order for your argument to be valid, then I have to argue by default that you would be infringing upon my freedom of speech if you were to fire me if I voiced my opinions of a customer.

The principal is free to talk about, worship, pray, cut himself in ritual when NOT ON THE JOB. No rights are being infringed upon, common sense, use it.

They are free to fire him from announcing games. I do not contest that.

i do contest that there is no right to pray before the game.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Then I contest that you have no right to make policy infringing my right to free speech and firing for breaking that policy as my rights are constitutionally protected.

Again, your argument is no different.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Then I contest that you have no right to make policy infringing my right to free speech and firing for breaking that policy as my rights are constitutionally protected.

Again, your argument is no different.

you can say what you want. and i will cease reimbursing you for your time, as you are failing to meet the employment "contract".

you cannot force me to give you money. you are missing that key point: you are not entitled to my money. Employment is not a right.

i just want to add that, as an employer, i can fire you for just about anything. as long as it isn't a protected class issue (race, creed, religious persuasion, etc), your only recourse is unemployment benefits.

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.

This will be my last reply to your vituperative and emotional rants. That's not debate, and it's not well know as a method of getting your point across, unless your point is that you are ruled by emotions.

Unless you are employed directly by congress, then your right to free speech is not Constitutionally protected from your employer.

Your use of "Christ" as an epithet was, I would say, merely intended to inflame. Not gonna work, but you SHOULD call on some deity who knows you instead. Seems that would better serve you, and be more productive. Either way, meh, if you have to keep trying to tweak the christians rather than actually getting a point across, be my guest.

These 'tools' are spewing? Really? These 'tools' are sharp enough to realize that people will resort to name calling and dull repetitions when they have no logical argument to make. I am forced, by this post, to conclude that to be the case here.

[edit on 2010/5/30 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Frankly, there is no Constitutional requirement that government provide public schooling. It is a drain on public funds, and if the issue of worship is such as sensitive one that no one can worship without temper tantrums being thrown, then I say every parent can send their kids to the private school of their choice instead of demanding every soul, whether they have children or not, pay for a "free" public education. That would settle the whole damn issue in a New York minute.

Really, is that what you think? So only the well-to-do receive educations? The fact that there is no constitutional requirement for public schooling is a precise example as to why the constitution shouldn't be considered the end-all be-all. Would you care to hypothesize as to the ramifications of eliminating public schools? Right off the top of my head I can think of a few problems.

1) Personal debt skyrockets as a result of schooling costs.

2) Many people in the middle class, lower-middle class, and poor do not receive educations at all.

3) Birth rates of the uneducated greatly increase due to a lack of sexual education.

4) Illiteracy becomes a problem of the majority.

5) The gap between the haves and the have-nots widens at an exponential rate.

6) Slums and ghettos become larger and more isolated, and begin to resemble third world countries.

7) Our country becomes capitalist and democratic in name only.

8) Among other things, minimum wage is no longer adjusted for inflation.

9) A corporatized USA becomes a haven for globalized business due to extremely low tax rates and plentiful cheap labor, containing both corporate headquarters AND factories that are well separated.

10) As a sovereign corporate empire, the motivations behind "preemptive wars" and "spreading democracy" become all too transparent, ultimately leading to a third world war.

Though I bet religion would be at its strongest during this new dark age.

I posted this rant to highlight something. You don't believe this, so don't post it, you're embarrassing yourself.


And as for religion in schools. Well, I have a different, more psychological take it on. See, if a child, that simply cannot bring himself to believe, is surrounded by belief, and this is on display at all times, he may begin to feel isolated. These feelings of "not-belonging" could cause one to become a secluded, psychotic time bomb, given enough time. Do you really want these types of people being "created" because, "OMGZ!!! they tookz away our religions, oh noes!!!"

I like to use extremes in my examples, but seriously, religion is just one more way of dividing us.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

you cannot force me to give you money. you are missing that key point: you are not entitled to my money. Employment is not a right.

Then stop defending the principal.

Lets break this down a bit:

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
And as for religion in schools. Well, I have a different, more psychological take it on. See, if a child, that simply cannot bring himself to believe, is surrounded by belief, and this is on display at all times, he may begin to feel isolated.

This could be true. There are myriad issues with psychological well being in schools. Isolation happens with everything. You remove clothing and put in uniforms, then you have to deal with the use of things like designer socks or watches being the tool of discrimination amongst peers. You have identified a problem here for sure: that kids will find just about every possible mechanism to be cruel to one another, and to take such cruel treatment more severely and less rationally. But you do nothing to address this problem. You only treat a symptom of the problem by removing an unalienable right.

Is that a solution? Should we trade liberty for safety?

These feelings of "not-belonging" could cause one to become a secluded, psychotic time bomb, given enough time.

Yes, you are right. They COULD. In your HYPOTHETICAL, this COULD happen.

Do you really want these types of people being "created" because, "OMGZ!!! they tookz away our religions, oh noes!!!"

Now you go from "it COULD happen" to discussing it like it is already happening? This faulty logic is exactly why i seriously doubt the position you are debating. I could be wrong in my assertions...but the more i see logic like that, the more I am convinced i am not.

I like to use extremes in my examples, but seriously, religion is just one more way of dividing us.

Religion only divides those who are intolerant enough to need to remove themselves from people who exercise their right to religious freedom.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

you cannot force me to give you money. you are missing that key point: you are not entitled to my money. Employment is not a right.

Then stop defending the principal.

I am not defending that the people who are in charge of the game cannot ask him to not conduct that duty anymore. I have stated this exactly and precisely.

I am only arguing that he has a constitutional right to pray.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


OK, but his right to pray is not being infringed upon at all.

I still fail to see any problem.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

OK, but his right to pray is not being infringed upon at all.

I still fail to see any problem.

So, you have no issue with what occurred in the OP? If not, then we have no disagreement relevant to this thread.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

OK, but his right to pray is not being infringed upon at all.

I still fail to see any problem.

So, you have no issue with what occurred in the OP? If not, then we have no disagreement relevant to this thread.

OK, I know I haven't been able to keep up with the speed of discussion in this thread, but I was under the impression that you were defending the right for the principle to continue calling for prayer despite the policy of his job.

If I'm mistaken, then I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but this is what I thought you've been arguing this whole time.

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

OK, but his right to pray is not being infringed upon at all.

I still fail to see any problem.

So, you have no issue with what occurred in the OP? If not, then we have no disagreement relevant to this thread.

OK, I know I haven't been able to keep up with the speed of discussion in this thread, but I was under the impression that you were defending the right for the principle to continue calling for prayer despite the policy of his job.

If I'm mistaken, then I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but this is what I thought you've been arguing this whole time.

My argument is that his employer can fire him if they want, but that it isn't the role of the supreme court to decide.

reply to post by Reflection

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.

First off, The SCOTUS does not "allow" anything, and in terms of Congress it is what The Constitution allows. Second, you seem to want to ignore the fact that the principal in the O.P. did not in anyway pray over the loud speaker himself, and certainly did not demand that others pray in any specific way. Your willingness to recognize this in regards to Congress and the POTUS, but not recognize this in regards to the principal is hard to understand. You seem to be arbitrarily changing the rules to fit your own feelings on the matter.

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.

You know what my friend? I am not one to buy into "gray areas" as an excuse for not being clear on what the law is, but there clearly wants to be a gray area in this thread regarding the difference between The Establishment Clause and The Freedom of Worship Clause. As the SCOTUS has held on a number of occasions, the right to freely worship can not be trumped by the prohibition of establishing a national religion. I have now read two Supreme Court cases cited in this thread, by the opposition, (cases that appear not to have been read by that opposition), in both the Good News Club ruling, (that clearly stated that as long as an event is open to the public and not closed to a specific group, their faith is irrelevant), and Lee v Weisman.

It is time consuming to read these rulings because the opinions rendered, and the dissent that follows is often lengthy and verbose. The importance of reading these cases rather than rely on some anonymous summation and ascribe to that summation a lack of bias, is that the SCOTUS does all it can to avoid gray areas and simply adhere to the law. I am bringing this up because while reading Lee v Weisman, I read a particularly interesting passage that spoke to striking down a state constitutional provision qualifying the belief in God as a prerequisite to holding office. I was intrigued by this and wondered how it was the Tennessee provision still stood.

In fact, when I first read that Tennessee provision I was stunned and wondered how such a provision had managed to avoid the notice of the ACLU and subsequently the SCOTUS. Lee v Weisman is rather lengthy in its ruling and their are three Justices who dissent, but I thought of you when I read that passage and thought how interesting it would be to discuss that here in this thread. I want to go back and re-read that ruling for myself but time does not permit this for the next few days, but if you would like, I will in a later post, post a link to that ruling so that you can read through it, and I don't even mind if you want to wait until I have had the time to reread it and point the specific passage I am referring to. It is compelling to say the least.

At any rate, your assertions that the SCOTUS have somehow ruled it illegal for the principal to do what he did is just not true. I am willing to debate these "gray areas" you speak of, if only to separate the black and the white from the gray so we are not stuck in such a muddled area of reasoning. Let me know if you want me to post the link to Lee v Weisman and I will happily do so.

reply to post by Reflection

This is from jinx880101 on page 37 of this thread.

The quote you took from page 37 fails to provide precisely which ruling rendered this opinion. You are aware of that, right? This passage is in neither Good News Club, nor Lee v. Weisman, and it has been truncated in a way on page 37 to deny anyone the opportunity to know which ruling it is referring to to read for ourselves what was actually held, and what was merely dicta. Biased summations often do this, and even when they do cite the actual case law in question, summations will often rely on dicta to assert what was held. An example of that would be Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, where many people, time and time again, use that ruling to assert that the SCOTUS "gave" corporations the same right as a person. That assertion is false, and Santa Clara County held no such thing, but merely spoke to their beliefs as dicta.

reply to post by Sunsetspawn

Really, is that what you think? So only the well-to-do receive educations? The fact that there is no constitutional requirement for public schooling is a precise example as to why the constitution shouldn't be considered the end-all be-all. Would you care to hypothesize as to the ramifications of eliminating public schools? Right off the top of my head I can think of a few problems.

I don't have to hypothesize the ramifications of eliminating public schools, and can rely on historical fact to support my claims. I did not think of this "off of the top of my head" and have given it great consideration and have researched the matter. First, to your question that only the well to do receive education, this is an assumption of yours that must be coming from "off of the top of your head" and more likely your "heart" than from your head. Eliminating public schools does not dictate that poor people would be denied an education, it merely eliminates the public drain of funds spent on failed public schools.

Secondly, it should be noted that my assertions that there are no federal Constitutional mandates for public education does not in anyway diminish state constitutional mandates for such an institution. In the United States of America, public education has been reserved a right of the states, and even then reserved a right of districts within that state. The federal government funding public education is not a mandate, and if this funding was so necessary then why are so many public schools failing?

By 1791 there were 14 states that had their own constitutions, but out of those 14 states, only 7 had provisions for public education. Indeed, it was not until the 1840's that the notion of a common public school system even began to take root. It was Massachusetts in 1852 that passed the first compulsory laws regarding education, and the State of New York followed suit in 1853. It wasn't until 1918 that all states had passed compulsory laws regarding education, and of course, if a state is going to compel people to get an education they are then obligated to provide the means by which this education can be had. Prior to this compulsory education by the states, most children were taught by their parents.

As to your assertions that poor people are incapable of getting an education without federal or state assistance, this ignores the fact that Abraham Lincoln was remarkably poor, and his education was primarily had by his own means. Consider Lincolns own words on the matter:

My father, at the death of his father, was but six years of age; and he grew up, litterally [sic] without education. He removed from Kentucky to what is now Spencer County, Indiana, in my eighth year. We reached our new home about the time the State came into the Union. It was a wild region, with many bears and other wild animals, still in the woods. There I grew up. There were some schools, so called; but no qualification was ever required of a teacher beyond "readin, writin, and cipherin" to the Rule of Three. If a straggler supposed to understand latin happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizzard [sic]. There was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education. Of course when I came of age I did not know much. Still somehow, I could read, write, and cipher to the Rule of Three; but that was all. I have not been to school since. The little advance I now have upon this store of education, I have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity.

Your willful ignorance of history and the many great men and women who have not only risen to political power, but have endowed humanity with great inventions and innovations, such as Benjamin Banneker, and Henry Ford, and for certain ignores that during The Age of Reason and Enlightenment, public school systems were virtually non existent. So, you can smugly declare that an elimination of public schools would bring us back into the dark ages, and claim I have embarrassed myself, but it appears this ignorance of yours was gained by public education, and you not only embarrass yourself, but public education as well.

Never let your schooling interfere with your education.

~Mark Twain~

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


So your argument is that a different branch of government services that deals with rule making can't make rules for another branch of government services that already has a rule of keeping religion out of public schools?

That's dumb.