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

Originally posted by Reflection

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Reflection

 

Yes, we got your views earlier in the discussion.

Would you like to put all of your arguments into a purposeful diction?

I have been keeping up with this thread for the entire time, just because YOU feel that it is nothing, some of us idiots feel that just MAYBE that those that believe in a higher power, should be allowed to talk about it.

Now, since you believe that those who believe in a higher power should be deprived of their free speech, maybe should explain this theory instead of JUST DECLARING that you are right!

I'm not saying to stop talking, I'm just saying I don't know what a lot of this discussion has to do with the op and maybe someone should start a new thread. I understand that discussions like this will start to branch off, but it just seems like most supporters of the principal are not addressing the most basic bottom line that I referred to above. It seems like they like to go off in a lot of different directions but never seem to address the bottom line that this has nothing to do with free speech. Which I very much believe in, by the way. What you said about me wanting to deprive people of free speech is just another example of these BS assumptions that it's about free speech.

I have been thinking of starting a thread on this BUT, I do not want to denigrate this thread. There has been a LOT of useful information discussed on both sides of the argument. I do not want to defuse this discussion.

Here is the thing, if I was an atheist, or if I was a deist, would I want someone to stop my speech? It does not matter who I am. It matters that I speak freely right?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It doesn't matter if it was in his contract or not. He was told, I'm sure because of the Supreme Court, that he couldn't pray it or he would be fired. No one is guaranteed employment or has the right to employment.

reply to post by Reflection


I actually believe in that diction.

Now, my question is, does it matter what the surrounding area decide or does it matter what the NATIONAL area decides?

reply to post by endisnighe


Well, since the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause in the first amendment, it should have to be applied to all states because of the 14th amendment.

reply to post by Reflection


Oh, do not tell me that you believe the rhetoric behind the 14th Amendment.

This amendment is the one that removed ALL our unalienable rights.

Well, I guess if you believe that being a 14th Amendment citizen accrued your rights, there is no further discussion.

There is ONE unalienable right, to understand your rights.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Uhm...

Section 2: The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution.

I still fail to see the problem here. They were well within their legal function to make this ruling. I made one direct bitch about the principal, the rest has been bitching about your usage of the principal as a soap pox to air your grievances against the government which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

As Reflection pointed out

"The Supreme Court has ruled that a prayer by a public school, like a prayer over the public address system or a prayer by a teacher to start class, is coercive and unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause."

Nothing wrong has occurred here.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Reflection

 

Oh, do not tell me that you believe the rhetoric behind the 14th Amendment.

This amendment is the one that removed ALL our unalienable rights.

Well, I guess if you believe that being a 14th Amendment citizen accrued your rights, there is no further discussion.

There is ONE unalienable right, to understand your rights.

OK, i just read it from a little booklet I ordered from the heritage foundation. I didn't see any wording in there that was suggestive of being an act of taking away any rights.

Can you specify what your bitching.. I mean talking about?

reply to post by endisnighe

Here is the thing, if I was an atheist, or if I was a deist, would I want someone to stop my speech? It does not matter who I am. It matters that I speak freely right?

Irrelevant argument as this is not what is occurring here in the slightest. His job is education, not religion. It was ruled unconstitutional. End of case. He has to deal with his employers work policy or go work at a Christian private school.

You wanted to know.

First off-

First amendment-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



hnmmm, first off, I can UNDERSTAND everything that is postulated in the first amendment. It does NOT take a relevant judiciary to make me understand. Do you feel that you do not understand?

It is quite straight forward. It does not have ambiguous knowledge. It is not THAT hard to understand.

I am me and you are you. We are allowed to have differing opinions.

reply to post by endisnighe


Wonderful, so we're in agreement finally now? No wrong doing has occurred here!

Congress did not make any law respecting the establishment of religion.

Congress did not take away free speech.

The supreme court interpreted and made a ruling that it is unconstitutional and coercive to have religion in public school system. Private school systems are allowed to include prayer and religion if they so choose and there are many private schools that do just that.

Taxes go towards public schools because not everyone can actually afford private school's. Even if we took away the taxes for public schools and made people pay for education, we're left with even more people who can not afford education.

Children have a right to education and the government has a right to determine the curriculum for it's school system that it funds and what can and can not be taught. If someone does not like the curriculum or the school systems policies, then can try to get into a private school. There is financial assistance for private schooling.

reply to post by sirnex




Wow. Really.

I am sorry, but I will not even acknowledge that comment with a response.

You still feel because that government has taken over education, that the first amendment has relevance. This to me, even though I have no horse in the race, is STILL equality?

You are SOOOO irrelevant when it comes to situations that I am talking about.

You will understand sooner or later. Yes you will, given a Christian outlook or a Muslim one.

Because you hate or denigrate any religious philosophy, sooner or later you will understand.

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by endisnighe

 

Well, since the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause in the first amendment, it should have to be applied to all states because of the 14th amendment.

Now, which 14th amendment is it that you refer to? If i am not mistaken, there has been more than one 14th amendment, and including a legally ratified law that was just, well....forgotten and wiped off the books.

reply to post by sirnex


You just continue to obfuscate, is all you are doing, and by relying on what Reflection pointed out, only shows both of your willingness to obfuscate. What you are describing under the Supreme Court rulings cited in this thread has nothing at all to do with what the principal said or did at that football game. It has been falsely claimed that the SCOTUS declared football games a part of that purview, but not a single person has cited which SCOTUS case made this assertion.

When you cite Section 2 of Article III, all you have pointed out is that the SCOTUS has jurisdiction to hear a case, this does not in anyway grant them authority to make policy regarding any school district, and all they can do is hear cases where a disagreement between parties has happened. The length of this thread is due to the fact that many posters, including yourself with your histrionic bold red lettering has insisted that the principal can't do what he did. Had you and others not made this erroneous insistence, this mistake of fact, this misinterpretation of law, this thread would have died long ago.

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, there was no coercion from that principal and absolutely no evidence that he violated the terms of his contract. All your postings are just bitching about that principal and the members here who support his actions, nothing more. You have continually misrepresented the law in order to appear as if your opinion is law, but it isn't, not regarding that principal.

reply to post by endisnighe

You still feel because that government has taken over education, that the first amendment has relevance. This to me, even though I have no horse in the race, is STILL equality?

*SIGH* Government has not taken over education. It is NOT MANDATORY to send your children to government funded public schools. You have other options, such as homeschooling yourself, hiring someone to home school your child for you, or sending your child to private school. This idiotic argument that government has taken over education is unfounded BS. I get it, you don't like government funded public schools. If you have children in them, then you are FREE TO PULL THEM OUT AND CHOOSE ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS.

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

It doesn't matter if it was in his contract or not. He was told, I'm sure because of the Supreme Court, that he couldn't pray it or he would be fired. No one is guaranteed employment or has the right to employment.

Yet, that principal did not do anything contrary to what the SCOTUS has ruled, so exactly what is your problem with what that principal did?

reply to post by sirnex

It is NOT MANDATORY to send your children to government funded public schools. You have other options, such as homeschooling yourself, hiring someone to home school your child for you, or sending your child to private school. This idiotic argument that government has taken over education is unfounded BS. I get it, you don't like government funded public schools. If you have children in them, then you are FREE TO PULL THEM OUT AND CHOOSE ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS.

Once again, you show your profound ignorance of what is happening, and the tyranny of the state, regarding school choice. In the State of California, for example, parents have been fighting that State for a number of years regarding homeschooling:

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.

You know not what you speak of.

I tried to envelope the ideals of both sides.

I was not allowed, what does that tell you?

I am going to ask one more time?

Does anyone have the ability to understand? Or do we suggest?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Dude, religion has already been taken out of government funded public school prior to this case. There is nothing wrong here, it has been previously deemed unconstitutional as it's an act of coercion to force children to pray or learn religious teachings that they may not adhere by themselves outside of school. The government is not a church nor is required to allow religion in it's school system.

There are private schools that teach religion. It is unconstitutional for the government to establish religion, including in it's funded school system. Allowing the principal to call for prayer is no less than establishing a religion, he could have called for a moment of silence instead. No rights have been infringed upon at all. He is still free to have his personal beliefs, he is not free to establish one particular system of belief when his job is funded by the government. Case closed, let's give it a rest already.

This is ridiculous that you and others have managed tot wist this out of proportion and use it as your soap box to bitch about how you hate the government. Grow up already. Nothing wrong has occurred. If the principal doesn't like that he can't establish a religion on behalf of his employer then he can quit and go work at a christian private school and cut himself in hopes his god will love him more.

reply to post by sirnex


Dude, you keep repeating yourself ad nauseum, and one of the things you keep repeating is that there is nothing wrong here, which is precisely what I have been saying. That principal did nothing wrong. There is no basis in law to demand he be fired for what he did. It is that simple.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ah OK... So your against a child's right to a competent teacher and proper education!

Second line to laugh.