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

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

What is dumb is your willful misrepresentation of what others are saying in order to declare it dumb. All three branches are bound by the rules of Constitution, and one branch can't just whimsically impose rules upon another, all three must abide by the rules set forth by the Constitution for the United States of America.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Uh, excuse me for not knowing this, but which one of the three branches does government funded public school fall under?

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

"Rules for another branch"...you mean the rules they act within? No, the rules that they act within is laid out constitutionally.

Only one branch of government "makes rules". That is the legislative. Any other branch doing it is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Uh, excuse me for not knowing this, but which one of the three branches does government funded public school fall under?

State level legislative ensures funding and boundaries for operations. The executive ensures that the operations occur properly, and meet guidelines set by the state. The judicial hears complaints and determines the resolution of the case brought before them, if it should pertain to the schools this is their impact.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

"Rules for another branch"...you mean the rules they act within? No, the rules that they act within is laid out constitutionally.

Only one branch of government "makes rules". That is the legislative. Any other branch doing it is unconstitutional.

OK, so I looked it up, and the Supreme court does appear to be within it's bounds of function here.

The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or judicature) is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign or state.

Wiki

I rechecked the OP to make sure this is right.

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law.

So there is no issue here at all and the last 42 pages of back and forth bitching about how this is oh so wrong is really just an exercise of idiocy.

The courts interpreted and applied the law, as is evident by the wording in the OP, they made a ruling, not a new law, so no wrong doing has occurred here at all.

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

"Rules for another branch"...you mean the rules they act within? No, the rules that they act within is laid out constitutionally.

Only one branch of government "makes rules". That is the legislative. Any other branch doing it is unconstitutional.

OK, so I looked it up, and the Supreme court does appear to be within it's bounds of function here.

The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or judicature) is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign or state.

Wiki

I rechecked the OP to make sure this is right.

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law.

So there is no issue here at all and the last 42 pages of back and forth bitching about how this is oh so wrong is really just an exercise of idiocy.

The courts interpreted and applied the law, as is evident by the wording in the OP, they made a ruling, not a new law, so no wrong doing has occurred here at all.

However, as has been pointed out, the person who wrote the law has expressly stated that is not how he meant the law. He gave the interpretation of the law as it was written.

Then, you give the law a cursory reading, and you find that lo and behold, the school district and the principle are neither one "Congress", nor are they making a law. So the only part of the first amendment that would apply to what they are doing is the "freedom of speech" part.

The position held by myself, and i would assume many others here, is that the Supreme Court has imposed tyranny on the people via the decision, and then to make matters worse, the decision has been so paraphrased that the common person doesn't even understand the decision as it was intended, either.

We are far, far from our constitution in this regard. This means that there is no rule of law.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

However, as has been pointed out, the person who wrote the law has expressly stated that is not how he meant the law. He gave the interpretation of the law as it was written.

I missed that part, what page was this discussed?

Then, you give the law a cursory reading, and you find that lo and behold, the school district and the principle are neither one "Congress", nor are they making a law. So the only part of the first amendment that would apply to what they are doing is the "freedom of speech" part.

The Supreme Court did nothing wrong. Please don't bring up freedom of speech when I've just got done with this earlier. If your going to invoke freedom of speech then I'm going to take your ass to court when you tell me I can insult an unruly customer. The principle has no freedom of speech any more than I do when ON THE JOB, correct?

The position held by myself, and i would assume many others here, is that the Supreme Court has imposed tyranny on the people via the decision, and then to make matters worse, the decision has been so paraphrased that the common person doesn't even understand the decision as it was intended, either.

It's not tyranny.

We are far, far from our constitution in this regard. This means that there is no rule of law.

I know, I know... big mean bad government for keeping religion out of government, which is a secular government. *yawn*

reply to post by sirnex


It is astounding that when you claim to have checked out the bounds of jurisdiction of The SCOTUS you cite a wiki source rather than the source itself, that being The Constitution for the United States of America, Article III. This form of "research" reveals much about why you believe what you believe.

The SCOTUS most certainly does have the authority to interpret law and render rulings based upon that interpretation. However, the other branches also have authority to interpret law, and there are numerous examples of where a difference between what The SCOTUS has insisted the law to mean, and one of the other branches disagreeing with this ruling, the most famous example probably being Congress' passage of The 16th Amendment in response to The Supreme Courts ruling in Pollack v Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.

Further, your insistence that the past 40 some pages of debate has been pointless ignores your own assertions that the principal in this matter had no right to do what he did. That principal did not violate any law, nor did he go against any Supreme Court ruling, even if he did vocalize his own dissent with their ruling. Several people have insisted that this principal had no right to do what he did. This has been the basis of much of the debate in this thread.

As to your earlier question of which branch handles public education Bigfatfurrytexan answered it for you and correctly so, the issue is not a federal one, other than when there is a disagreement of law within any state, the SCOTUS then can be asked to hear the case and render a decision. There just is no Constitutional mandate for the federal government to fund public education, and any Department of Education and so forth is an unnecessary drain on public funds. If public schools were so effective, it is arguable you would have turned to The Constitution to cite, rather than relying upon a wiki source to do so.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is astounding that when you claim to have checked out the bounds of jurisdiction of The SCOTUS you cite a wiki source rather than the source itself, that being The Constitution for the United States of America, Article III. This form of "research" reveals much about why you believe what you believe.

I'm sorry if I failed to research enough into it to write an essay. Wasn't aware that this was a requirement in this thread. Thanks for the heads up!

The SCOTUS most certainly does have the authority to interpret law and render rulings based upon that interpretation.

OK, and my cursory wiki research alludes to just that and this is what they did. So, no problem, they did what they do.

However, the other branches also have authority to interpret law, and there are numerous examples of where a difference between what The SCOTUS has insisted the law to mean, and one of the other branches disagreeing with this ruling, the most famous example probably being Congress' passage of The 16th Amendment in response to The Supreme Courts ruling in Pollack v Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.

And are the other two branches stepping in saying this is wrong for the supreme court to rule?

Further, your insistence that the past 40 some pages of debate has been pointless ignores your own assertions that the principal in this matter had no right to do what he did. That principal did not violate any law, nor did he go against any Supreme Court ruling, even if he did vocalize his own dissent with their ruling. Several people have insisted that this principal had no right to do what he did. This has been the basis of much of the debate in this thread.

I'm not saying his girlish whining about the ruling rendered is against any law. I mean, come on, can't the guy grow up? Boo hoo, no religion in government. It's the end of the world! AHHHH!

As to your earlier question of which branch handles public education Bigfatfurrytexan answered it for you and correctly so, the issue is not a federal one, other than when there is a disagreement of law within any state, the SCOTUS then can be asked to hear the case and render a decision. There just is no Constitutional mandate for the federal government to fund public education, and any Department of Education and so forth is an unnecessary drain on public funds. If public schools were so effective, it is arguable you would have turned to The Constitution to cite, rather than relying upon a wiki source to do so.

Right, so to sum it up, the branch that handles public school was within it's bounds to make a ruling preventing an employee from uttering religious dogma on whatever grounds it chose to do so.

Basically, we have a case of an employee bitching about how his boss won't let him insult the customers and this infringes on his right to free speech.

Build a bridge.

reply to post by sirnex

I'm not saying his girlish whining about the ruling rendered is against any law. I mean, come on, can't the guy grow up? Boo hoo, no religion in government. It's the end of the world! AHHHH!

Uh-huh. Here is what you asserted on page 39:

No no no no... Your not defending his rights as his rights are not being infringed upon. His job terms does not allow for him to blast his religious convictions, end of story. No person in government nor any government agency/function should have anything to do with religion as was dictated by our god damned founding fathers!

You went on to state:

That principal is free to believe in whatever the hell he wants, but he is not free to establish those beliefs whilst working in his official capacity for the government. If he does not like that this government is secular, then he can quit working for the government and get a job at a Christian private school instead. If he does that then he can blast his religious convictions all he wants, and there would be no problems.

You further stated in that same post:

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

You then misrepresented what the principal actually did by stating:

We left Britain for that very damn reason! Now we're going to go back to that because the oh so poor principal working for the government can't do his job as a government worker without invoking his deity in ritualistic practices?!

Nenothtu has all ready called you on your histrionics, and if this is how you think spending your time in this thread benefits you, that is your choice to make. You can be as dismissive as you want about the call to rely on the actual source of a law, rather than a third hand summation of that law, all you want, it doesn't make you appear to be any wiser for it, and certainly damages the all ready damaged reputation of public schools.

Indeed, the grossly overgeneralized statement that "we" left Britain, ignores the vast amount of people who left other countries to reside here, and certainly ignores that Britain was sluggish to get into the whole colonization of "The New World" only following Spain and Portugal's actions. While the 13 colonies that revolted against British rule were certainly under that rule, not all were British. You are certainly ignoring the fact that there were people of African decent who were born free in America, beginning with William Tucker born and baptized in Virginia, in 1624. Or, perhaps you are not ignoring this, and merely ignorant to it, due to your woeful public education.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

However, as has been pointed out, the person who wrote the law has expressly stated that is not how he meant the law. He gave the interpretation of the law as it was written.

I missed that part, what page was this discussed?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Supreme Court did nothing wrong. Please don't bring up freedom of speech when I've just got done with this earlier. If your going to invoke freedom of speech then I'm going to take your ass to court when you tell me I can insult an unruly customer. The principle has no freedom of speech any more than I do when ON THE JOB, correct?

And your employer has every right to stop giving you money, and to ask that you not return to their property, you are correct.

It's not tyranny.

Then what is it called when a persons unalienable rights are diminished?

I know, I know... big mean bad government for keeping religion out of government, which is a secular government. *yawn*

Football games are not a government function.

LIsten, i am saying this over and over again. This is getting like a contest of who will give up first. If that is what we are measuring, then you can win. Otherwise, i will assume that unless you can present something new and different, there is nothing further that is worthwhile to discuss.

From the length of this thread it seems clear that the legality of the religious psychotic principal is dubious. I'm uncertain as to whether any laws were broken. Evidently not, as this seems a crafty method to incite prayer where it was generally understood that this was legally unacceptable. The nature of his speech seems to indicate he was intentionally acting as a scofflaw yet operating within some legal loophole. Good for him then, I guess, for exercising his freedom of speech. I'll exercise some freedom of association by avoiding this zealous, dweeby goober.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by sirnex

The Supreme Court did nothing wrong. Please don't bring up freedom of speech when I've just got done with this earlier. If your going to invoke freedom of speech then I'm going to take your ass to court when you tell me I can insult an unruly customer. The principle has no freedom of speech any more than I do when ON THE JOB, correct?

And your employer has every right to stop giving you money, and to ask that you not return to their property, you are correct.

The only thing I can really add here is that unless bigfatfurrytexan's business is actually owned and operated by congress, then he his not prohibited from restricting his employee's behavior on his premises. The First Amendment restriction on legislating such matters, in any way, is pretty clear - and it doesn't restrict private businesses.

Again, it says "CONGRESS shall make NO LAW..."

The argument is apples against socket wrenches.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


OK, so basically we just have a case of an employee bitching about his employer's work policy.

Really, I still am failing to see this big bad government tyranny you folks seem to think exists.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

And your employer has every right to stop giving you money, and to ask that you not return to their property, you are correct.

Great, so problem solved. The principal can leave his job and go work for a private Christian school who's policy allows for ritualistic prayers to a deity in hoped that will look favorably upon the home team.

Then what is it called when a persons unalienable rights are diminished?

His rights were not diminished.

Football games are not a government function.

This football game was a function of a government run school. The government has every right to dictate how that school should operate as they fund it.

LIsten, i am saying this over and over again. This is getting like a contest of who will give up first. If that is what we are measuring, then you can win. Otherwise, i will assume that unless you can present something new and different, there is nothing further that is worthwhile to discuss.

Your right, there is nothing worthwhile in this thread to discuss. All there is, is the hypocritical bitching of how absolutley nothing wrong is being conducted here.

We have a simple case of an employee bitching about his employer's work policy. As you admitted, I have no freedom of speech when policy dictates that freedom is not granted under the job. You can fire me for cussing, his employer can fire him for bringing religious rituals into public schooling.

See, no problems here, other than a bunch of morons who think the government is inherently evil and out to infringe upon everyone's rights without a single shred of intelligent thought behind that argument. I mean, I personally don't consider contradictory arguments to be intelligent.

reply to post by sirnex


The tyranny of the federal government is plainly existent, and it has all ready been pointed out in this thread that where the Founders Revolution of 1776 was ignited by a revolt on a tax on tea, income tax did not exist at that time, and the perpetual income tax of today would certainly qualify as tyranny. Further, this thread seems to be about those who oppose tyranny, and the opponents to that seem to be genuine sycophants of tyranny. At least you are willing to back off of your initial contentions, and recognize that all that principal did, as you put it, was complain about his employers policies.

I see nothing wrong with this, as long as all the children at the school are Christian. If not, they should also set aside time for prayers from the denominations of non-christian students.

If there were a school here in America where the majority of the students were Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever, would you all be as outraged as you are now if someone protested them from saying only a J/M/H/W prayer at the start of their games and ignored the beliefs of the non-J/M/H/W students?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I agree with you on the taxes, but that is a damn straw man argument that bears no relation to this current topic of discussion. What is going on here is not tyrannical. It's work policy and as stated I have no right to freedom of speech if work policy says so, as does this principal.

Nothing wrong in this regard is occurring here and the last 40 some odd pages are all BS bitching about how people think the government is this big bad evil thing using this insignificant whiny principal as a sounding board for their own opinions of the government.

Originally posted by sirnex


This football game was a function of a government run school. The government has every right to dictate how that school should operate as they fund it.

If this view is taken as correct, then it would stand to reason that the "government" spoke, as the agency responsible for his employment likely either fired him, or did not. In either way, the local school board, which is its own entity (and not the state) should be allowed to run their schools as the community that votes on their officials sees fit.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


So basically we're still left with a simple case of an employee bitching about his employers work policy in the same light as you not allowing me to insult customers. Great, so it's agreed, nothing wrong is going on here and the last 42 pages were just BS bitching about government using this insignificant garbage as a soapbox which has nothing to do with this simple case of no wrong doing.