It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 19
113
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by nenothtu
 



I may be mistaken, but I believe it was you that I asked earlier in this thread to point out where the US Constitution forbids the free exercise of religion in ANY facility. I've been up all night waiting for that answer, and have yet to see it.

....

Yet you presume to insinuate that I am the one who "can't even understand the very basic foundational documents"?


Yes, because even after explaining the damn thing you still don't get it.


"explain' it? You can't even quote it. How you gonna 'explain' it?

Now the US Constitution is a 'damn thing'? Nice.



What your asking does not exist as the private right to worship in public is not forbidden at all.


Exactly my point. Thanks.



The right for government workers to call for prayer *is* against the constitution, first amendment. They have no right to establish any religion at all.


Should be pretty easy to find it and explain it then, right? Why haven't you done so? I've searched the Constitution up and down, and still haven't found what you imply is there. You'll have to point it out to me.

If you can.




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Should be pretty easy to find it and explain it then, right? Why haven't you done so? I've searched the Constitution up and down, and still haven't found what you imply is there. You'll have to point it out to me.

If you can.

From this site:


School districts must allow religious speech on the same terms as they allow other speech. Therefore, students have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activities. A public school may not suppress or exclude private student speech for the sole reason that the speech contains a religious perspective. Although public school officials may not promote or initiate student prayer or require unwilling students to participate in prayer, they may support and give official recognition to this nation's collective religious heritage without risking a violation of the Establishment Clause.


This was established in the U.S. Supreme court in the case Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by rival
I think public prayer should be allowed in schools, over the PA.

I wholeheartedly agree that prayer is/was/will be what makes this
country great...and I am going to do something about it THIS FRIDAY.

At my local high school football game I am going to ask to speak
over the PA, and when I am given the chance, I am going to lead
my small town in prayer. To thank God for all we have, to bless
the this contest of sportsmanship, to bless our troops, and to
bless us all....

I will also pray that I won't be yelled at, persecuted or worse,
for my beliefs...because I will be praying to Buddha.


May I get up after you and lead everyone in a prayer to Satan?

Can my Muslim friend follow me with a prayer that Allah smites the infidel football team?

Can my Atheist friend follow him and lead everyone in a moment of quiet reflection about how stupid the idea of any god is?

We simply ask for the same time and attention you receive. I have lots more friends of lots of different religions so it might take a while before the game starts. Fair though, right?



Did you read the last line of my post?
Or were you just being consistent against all religion...it reads like you
missed the point of the post. Maybe I'm paranoid, but anyway, YES,
everyone can get in line to pray over the PA...except for atheistic
homosexual masochists with a penchant for wearing spandex tiger-print,
...I'm allergic to spandex



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
" 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. "


Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but , didn't the first and foremost settlers of this country come here in search of a place where they could be free from RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ?

The key word above is 'respecting' . A lot of folks construe this to mean that congress should not make a law that shows respect to any certain religion .

The word 'respect' is also defined as ... "(3) relation or reference ., (7) to show regard or consideration for ".

Thus , (3) congress shall make no law in RELATION to or REFERENCE to an establishment of religion ., and (7) congress shall make no law REGARDING an establishment of religion , or , congress shall make no law CONSIDERING an establishment of religion .

Again , correct me if I'm wrong but , I don't think CONGRESS has 'made' any laws that do any of the above ?

And again , has CONGRESS 'made' any laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." ?

This whole issue doesn't concern any actual 'laws' that have been passed . It concerns those demi-gods who set on the SCOTUS and interpret the constitution however they please .

The same ones who are Appointed , not Elected .

Why aren't the people allowed a voice in who sets on that court ?

Because it would place WAY too much power and self-governance in the hands of the people .

Nothing will ever change until this selection process is changed .

Congress is not repressing your right to pray whenever and wherever you like , the SCOTUS is who is doing that ., along with that wonderful bastion of freedom-fighters known as the ACLU .

This type of stuff offends you ? Then stand up and demand change .

There is no LAW that says you can't pray ., or am I wrong in saying that ?

As far as I can tell , there is only an 'interpretation' that says you cannot pray .

I'm not christian but , I believe you should be able to do as you please as long as it doesn't hurt others .

At the same time , don't get all bent out of shape when the shoe is on the other foot and a muslim or odinist wishes to make the same speech the principle made .

Freedom of religion is not a one-way street .

Those of you who might be at the game and find it offensive , remember , these folks have a history of praying . It is not only to do with religion but , culture and tradition as well .

If they were coming into the local VFW trying to pray , then I would find that offensive .

When in Rome , do as the Romans do . Otherwise , stay the hell away from Rome .



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Would the principal's supporters feel the same way if he were a Muslim, Wiccan, Satanist, or Hindu?

Somehow I think they'd be screaming for his head.

This isn't about "freedom", it's about promoting one faith over all others.

Christians always preach tolerance while practicing intolerance.

If I'm watching football, you've no right to push your faith on me while I'm doing it, unless you advertise in advance it's a Christian event, in which case fine, but I won't be there.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but , didn't the first and foremost settlers of this country come here in search of a place where they could be free from RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ?


Yes, that is incorrect and a widely disseminated myth in modern history books.



Freedom of religion is not a one-way street .


Indeed, it is two-way, and also guarantees freedom from religion.



Those of you who might be at the game and find it offensive , remember , these folks have a history of praying . It is not only to do with religion but , culture and tradition as well .


Cultural heritage and tradition does enjoy preference above the laws of the land.



When in Rome , do as the Romans do . Otherwise , stay the hell away from Rome .


Indeed, places defined by their religious bigotry should be avoided.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   


It never ceases to amaze me that Christians believe they are the only ones who are right...


Do you know how ridiculous that sounds its our beliefs of course we are going to think we are the only ones who are right, just like athiest belive there the only ones who are right, or muslims or for that matter any religion. maybe you should right your statments down, read them and really think about them before you write/say things for others to hear. Thats part of the problem with people who think they are smart. They never think.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
It's called separation of church and state. The school is part of the state, so therefore a group prayer at a school event would be violating that. If you want to pray on your own or in a PRIVATE event then feel free, but subjecting students and parents to HIS religion is absolutely a violation of the separation of church and state. Most fundamentalist Christians have a really hard time grasping this idea. It's just another example of the arrogance and intolerance of religious fundamentalists.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu
Should be pretty easy to find it and explain it then, right? Why haven't you done so? I've searched the Constitution up and down, and still haven't found what you imply is there. You'll have to point it out to me.

If you can.

From this site:


School districts must allow religious speech on the same terms as they allow other speech. Therefore, students have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activities. A public school may not suppress or exclude private student speech for the sole reason that the speech contains a religious perspective. Although public school officials may not promote or initiate student prayer or require unwilling students to participate in prayer, they may support and give official recognition to this nation's collective religious heritage without risking a violation of the Establishment Clause.


This was established in the U.S. Supreme court in the case Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).




And still no word from the Constitution itself.

How strange.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
And still no word from the Constitution itself.

How strange.


Indeed, which is why the Supreme Court interprets these constitutional issues.

How strange of you not to recognize this.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The constitution gives us the right to freedom of religion. Granted it doesn't actually say "the state and church must be separate", but how can one have freedom of religion if the state is promoting a particular religion. Separation of church and state is a common sense idea that is born from freedom of religion. You can not have freedom of religion with out separation of church and state. Period.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu
And still no word from the Constitution itself.

How strange.


Indeed, which is why the Supreme Court interprets these constitutional issues.

How strange of you not to recognize this.


Au contraire, I DO recognize that. I also recognize that there are very few unanimous decisions, which is why so many justices have to write dissent opinions.

You see, opinion is opinion, and what's in the Constitution itself is set in stone, as it were, barring an amnedment.

Which is why I want confirmation from the Constitution, and I keep getting 'decisions' instead. It's because there appears not to be a man-jack here able to hold up his end of a Constitutional debate, when all that's required is to read what's plainly written, and should be understandable by the average American eighth grader.

It's very specific in what it has to say on the matter. No amount of judicial decision or doctrinal reconfiguration will change what's plainly written.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The constitution gives us the right to freedom of religion. Granted it doesn't actually say "the state and church must be separate", but how can one have freedom of religion if the state is promoting a particular religion. Separation of church and state is a common sense idea that is born from freedom of religion. You can not have freedom of religion with out separation of church and state. Period.


Precisely. Religion is not running the state, and the state ought not to be running religion. That's the gist of 'separation'.

That's why I find it odd that folks are attempting to use the First Amendment in order to abrogate the First Amendment.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Awesome I live a couple miles from this school all
I can say is great someone finally had the courage to stick up for what's right.


[edit on 10-04-08 by Beach Bum]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Au contraire, I DO recognize that. I also recognize that there are very few unanimous decisions, which is why so many justices have to write dissent opinions.


Engels v Vitale was a 6 to 1 decision



Which is why I want confirmation from the Constitution, and I keep getting 'decisions' instead. It's because there appears not to be a man-jack here able to hold up his end of a Constitutional debate, when all that's required is to read what's plainly written, and should be understandable by the average American eighth grader.


That argument is fallacious and would therefore imply there's no need for a SCOTUS to interpret such issues constitutionally. Eighth grader interpretations of the constitution are not what determines U.S. law.



It's very specific in what it has to say on the matter. No amount of judicial decision or doctrinal reconfiguration will change what's plainly written.


It would appear that your argument amounts to the fact that it doesn't specifically prohibit it, therefore it's fair game. This is another fallacious argument



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   


It's called separation of church and state. The school is part of the state, so therefore a group prayer at a school event would be violating that. If you want to pray on your own or in a PRIVATE event then feel free, but subjecting students and parents to HIS religion is absolutely a violation of the separation of church and state. Most fundamentalist Christians have a really hard time grasping this idea. It's just another example of the arrogance and intolerance of religious fundamentalists.


You're misinterpreting the phrase separation of church and state it is meant that religion can't own the state. It doesn't say anywhere in the amendment that it is against the law for you to hold prayer in a public place.

Besides you are all arguing something that has already been proven wrong. IF what is happening now was what the original forefathers meant to instill in our system, why is it then that they prayed in government buildings, and public building why did they put up scripture and religious symbols in public places. All this is is a blatant perversion of the amendment meant to harass and undermine religions and to further the agnostic belief system. Can anyone say politically ran agnostic crusades ????




Christians always preach tolerance while practicing intolerance.


When have Christians ever preached tolerance??? Did Jesus preach tolerance to the people who were selling goods in the temple; no he beat them with a wipe and told them to get out.




John 8: 23-24 Then he said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of the world; I am not. That is why I said that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am who I say I am, you will die in your sins."


Doesn't sound all that tolerant to me, basically he means if you follow me you go to heaven, if you don't you go to Hell?

Stop talking to "Christians" (which was really a derogatory word) and start talking to Christ followers. We aren't the normal piece loving wimps were here to shake things up, were aren't scared to tell you the truth.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by bigcountry08]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


You clearly have no understanding of The Constitution for the United States of America, and rather than relying on what others have told you about that Constitution, perhaps you should consider reading it for yourself, before spouting off what you think it means.



I have read your constitution and nowhere does it say a person in a public position can announce their religious views in a public forum like a school. The school is state run and as you have a seperation of church and state it most certainly includes the schools. Would you also be ok for an atheist to come on the PA system and say there is no god?

If you want religious views to be heard in school then simply send kids to a private institution. ublic schools are not the place for religion, they should be neutral, dealing only in facts.

Your constitution, most notably the first ammendment makes it clear that government should have no control over religion but at the same time it makes it clear that religion should not be promoted by the government or public officials. I would say a head teacher is a public official.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
My first point will be:
Want prayer at school? Then go to Catholic School.

My second point is: Why is it necessary to have prayer or the National Anthem at a sporting event?

We don't do it before a movie, play, or opera. So why a sporting event?

Are we saying that a football game and its players are holier and deserve more respect then the kids who are putting on a musical?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu

Au contraire, I DO recognize that. I also recognize that there are very few unanimous decisions, which is why so many justices have to write dissent opinions.


Engels v Vitale was a 6 to 1 decision


With a dissent, I note, and apparently 2 abstentions, since there are 9 justices.

So it wasn't unanimous. I'll have to wade through the decision and the dissent, in order to see what was said, and what wasn't said, Could take a while, since there will also be briefs to consider.





Which is why I want confirmation from the Constitution, and I keep getting 'decisions' instead. It's because there appears not to be a man-jack here able to hold up his end of a Constitutional debate, when all that's required is to read what's plainly written, and should be understandable by the average American eighth grader.


That argument is fallacious and would therefore imply there's no need for a SCOTUS to interpret such issues constitutionally. Eighth grader interpretations of the constitution are not what determines U.S. law.


It would be nice of you to point out the fallacy, rather than just making a blanket statement that there is one there somewhere.





It's very specific in what it has to say on the matter. No amount of judicial decision or doctrinal reconfiguration will change what's plainly written.


It would appear that your argument amounts to the fact that it doesn't specifically prohibit it, therefore it's fair game. This is another fallacious argument


See above.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigcountry08
You're misinterpreting the phrase separation of church and state it is meant that religion can't own the state. It doesn't say anywhere in the amendment that it is against the law for you to hold prayer in a public place. ?


The SCOTUS determined this in Engel v Vitale 1962.

It was challenged in 1963 in Abington School District v Schempp wherein the SCOTUS upheld the previous decision by 8 to 1.

Wikipedia


The Court explicitly upheld Engel v. Vitale, in which the Court ruled that the sanctioning of a prayer by the school amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".


The principal in the OP's article most definitely sanctioned a prayer in violation of U.S. law.



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join