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: 22
113
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by stonergeek
Ok, so if the entire team went to the same church and all of the opposing teams were of the same faith and chose to do this, would it still be a problem?



Yes. It's a public event funded by the government. The government can not under constitutional law sanction any religion at all regardless of how many followers of that religion are at said public event.

Law is law. Public is public. Church is church.


..that pretty much sums it up. Case closed in my books. Like an earlier post said, what would happen if the school principle was actually a Muslim and wanted to throw out some Muslim chant?

Would you be as fervently supportive of letting this happen? I'm inclined to say nay...

this thread did NOT even attempt to provide a conspiracy; instead, it was entirely directed at opening up a big, annoying, religious debate.

Please just move this to Below Top Secret where it belongs - with all the other pointless christian threads.




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu

OK then. We've established that there is leeway in the 'interpretations'.



And? Law was established by wide majority opinion. Law was challenged and upheld by wide majority opinion. That's the law of the land. The lack of unanimity in the decision does not render the law invalid. What then is the problem?


Problem 1) in the post immediately above this one, you decry the tyranny of the majority. Now you embrace it. There seems to be an inconsistency there.

Problem 2) In this post, I demnstrated that the decision you cite is not applicable, regardless of the judicial split.

And you have yet to apply the First Amendment to the subject at hand in any sort of valid way.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by sirnex
 


I guess the man that these quotes are from was not a religious man and was not really important in the WHOLE SCHEME of things! /s


If we were a dictatorship then I might care as to what religion George Washington was and your lengthy list of religious quotes by him might have relevance.

As it stands the constitution purposefully omitted reference to religion and went as far as to include wording forbidding "religious tests" for office holders.

Washington was a religious man, but he also understood that religion was often divisive and needed to be seperated from government and public institutions for the good of both our nation and the church.




Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

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. [bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

www.nobeliefs.com...


[edit on 26-5-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Prostitution being illegal is silly, too. As are all crimes without victims.

America was founded on the principles of liberty. Liberty is impossible under the weight of all our rules.


RE: public funding....i will again point that in Texas, football games are funded solely by booster clubs and ticket sales. It is big business. The football season of a big program can pay for the basketball, volleyball, track, band, and baseball teams.

No tax dollars go to support your average high school program in the state of Texas.

The football game is, in essense, a "for profit" venture to support as many extracurricular activities as possible.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


SO, what you are saying is that GOVERNMENT should not enforce a religion correct?

Since the other poster TOTALLY sidestepped my point, maybe you could address it.

Where in the Constitution does it ALLOW or MANDATE the government to run schools?

Are you going to sidestep this issue also?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Problem 1) in the post immediately above this one, you decry the tyranny of the majority. Now you embrace it. There seems to be an inconsistency there.


Are you actually claiming that the SCOTUS rulings are "tyranny of the majority"? That's quite the bold claim about the very organization given the power to prevent it.



Problem 2) In this post, I demnstrated that the decision you cite is not applicable, regardless of the judicial split.


You detailed some specifics of the cases at hand by which the law was determined. You are more than willing to take another case to SCOTUS and see how it works for you.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
ution being illegal is silly, too. As are all crimes without victims.

America was founded on the principles of liberty. Liberty is impossible under the weight of all our rules.


Agreed 100%



RE: public funding....i will again point that in Texas, football games are funded solely by booster clubs and ticket sales. It is big business. The football season of a big program can pay for the basketball, volleyball, track, band, and baseball teams.

No tax dollars go to support your average high school program in the state of Texas.

The football game is, in essense, a "for profit" venture to support as many extracurricular activities as possible.


How does it work in North Carolina? Because the principal details precisely how and why it cannot be done, yet he finds a way to do it anyway. That is an active attempt to identify, defy and thwart the law and do so by appealing to the religiosity of the crowd.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Are you actually claiming that the SCOTUS rulings are "tyranny of the majority"? That's quite the bold claim about the very organization given the power to prevent it.


Stressing the majority in this decision was your idea, not mine. I was simply pointing out that it is at odds with your take on majority rule in the post above that one.





Problem 2) In this post, I demnstrated that the decision you cite is not applicable, regardless of the judicial split.


You detailed some specifics of the cases at hand by which the law was determined. You are more than willing to take another case to SCOTUS and see how it works for you.


No, I copied and pasted the decision word for word. That's why I attributed the source. Are you saying the elements of the decision are flawed?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

RE: public funding....i will again point that in Texas, football games are funded solely by booster clubs and ticket sales. It is big business. The football season of a big program can pay for the basketball, volleyball, track, band, and baseball teams.

No tax dollars go to support your average high school program in the state of Texas.

The football game is, in essense, a "for profit" venture to support as many extracurricular activities as possible.


How does it work in North Carolina? Because the principal details precisely how and why it cannot be done, yet he finds a way to do it anyway. That is an active attempt to identify, defy and thwart the law and do so by appealing to the religiosity of the crowd.


In Central NC, it works the same way. I can only assume that's a statewide thing, since I don't live in the rest of the state. JRROTC also funds itself through fundraising endeavors.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Stressing the majority in this decision was your idea, not mine. I was simply pointing out that it is at odds with your take on majority rule in the post above that one.


It is only at odds if you believe that the SCOTUS operates by "tyranny of the majority"



No, I copied and pasted the decision word for word. That's why I attributed the source. Are you saying the elements of the decision are flawed?


No, only that the law is established. If you find the case "not applicable" to life in modern U.S. then you are free to present another case before them.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu

No, I copied and pasted the decision word for word. That's why I attributed the source. Are you saying the elements of the decision are flawed?


No, only that the law is established. If you find the case "not applicable" to life in modern U.S. then you are free to present another case before them.


Which means you can't find any flaws in the analysis. Fair enough.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Which means you can't find any flaws in the analysis. Fair enough.


In your analysis? I'm uninterested. Especially if you believe that since the key points in that case are not a direct parallel with the points raised in our thread discussion that the case the law was decided on, or the law itself, is "not applicable". That's as flawed as they come. As I said, you can argue your analysis before the courts if you choose.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Are you serious? You've honestly read the Tennessee Constitution, which is not mine, or have read the Federal Constitution, and you seriously think that the people can only do what the Constitution tells them they can do? What kind of government sycophant are you? The government has no authority whatsoever to grant rights, and both federal and state constitutions are a grant of rights for government not the people, and in these Constitutions are express prohibitions. What utter disingenuousness to come off pretending that people can only do what a constitution says they can do. If you want to be a slave to government this is your choice, but don't pretend to act as if you understand better the U.S. federal and state laws of which you know nothing about



The constitution of the USA does put limits on what the government can do rather than the individual, but what is a government? A government is a collection of people who administer certain laws, taxes, etc at the behest of the people (depending on the government of course).

As this principle was a school administer of a state run institution then he has no place, at all, in any way shape or form expressing his religious views over the PA system.

I ask you again, would you be ok for an atheist to come on the PA system and give a lecture about how god doesn't exist and would everyone please stop praying.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu

Which means you can't find any flaws in the analysis. Fair enough.


In your analysis? I'm uninterested.


It would seem so.





Especially if you believe that since the key points in that case are not a direct parallel with the points raised in our thread discussion that the case the law was decided on, or the law itself, is "not applicable".


Nor have you been able to demonstrate otherwise.



That's as flawed as they come.


I suppose so. I should of course just take your word for it, as your unable to argue the points other than to say "they're flawed" and leave it at that.




As I said, you can argue your analysis before the courts if you choose.


Could happen.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Nor have you been able to demonstrate otherwise.



I don't really care to point out flaws in your "analysis". The "prove me wrong" plea equates to proving a negative: not my burden. You can take your "analysis" to a lawyer though and let us know how it turns out. Until then the law of the land is clear and well-established.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm sorry. If you can direct me to the post where I mistakenly stated I was a Christian, I'll fix that. Otherwise, this whole section of yours is a smoke screen.


Gosh, my apologies, I did not mean to offend you by calling you Christian. I was wrong in assuming your odd defense of Christianity flouting the rules meant you were one. Please forgive me.



I'll be happy to. The specific quote is this:


Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I believe his message was that since he is not allowed to pray out loud in front of everyone so everyone can see him worship his god, he is going to point out that his religion has intolerant views of homosexuality instead. Not appropriate for a FAMILY event held at a public school on my tax dime.


From this post.

You'll note that you specified this individual, in this incident, at this school, not 'general statements about public school'.


So you completely forgot what I said about context or just decided to ignore it altogether? It is not appropriate for family event held at a public school on my tax dime. What exactly is your problem with my opinion there? That is how I feel. Are you telling me how I feel is incorrect?



That wouldn't be asking too much at all. I did. Trying to throw smoke out with unfounded ridicule won't change that.


Apparently context and grammar elude you still. I see that is the trend in this thread.


So you expect me to chase down your quotes AND mine?


Nope. If you want to discuss my quotes, then yes go find them. If you do not want to discuss them, I could care less. I would not dare referring to things you said without quoting them first. It just seems like an honest way to do things. Sorry not everyone feels that way. I am still waiting to find out when I said all of the things the other poster was claiming I said.

It just seems right that if you want to pick at my statements, you should be able to locate said statements and quote them. If you want to know how one relates to another, that is your job to go look up. I am not your mother.


No, it doesn't work that way. Do your own homework, retract the statement, or stand as a one who makes it up as he goes along.


What? Retract what statement?



No. I found one, you can chase down the rest. You're not going to keep my chasing busy work around. I didn't miss anything, and I'm not going to jump through hoops for you. I stand by what I said, and anyone reading this thread can see the same.


The reason you cannot quote me is because of one of two things.

1- you can not find what you claim I said.
2- you found it and read it correctly this time.

Now back to your claim...

When did I castigate anyone simply for lying? You talk about people doing homework and yet you feel justified in making accusations and then refusing to back them up? Cowardly at best, dishonest and weak at worst.


The attempt at ridicule you led this quote with indicates that you are aware of the weakness of your argument.



Do you understand anything?


Unfortunately for your contention, yes, I do.



I did not come in here and announce where I lived or any of that nonsense. You insisted I answer a question that on an internet forum makes no sense.


You opened that door by claiming it was YOUR tax dollars being violated.


No I did not. This is why I asked you to find the quote. I thought it would be better if you realized your error on your own and moved on but you refused to so...let me explain AGAIN. I expressed my opinion about what is not appropriate at a public school on my tax dime. Feel free to explain to me why my opinion is not valid again?



No. Irrelevant. That would seem to be yet another smoke screen, an attempt to ridicule, indicating a weak argument.


No it was me illustrating the sillyness of your question. The internet is full of people who CLAIM to be this or that, live here or there, and have done this or that thing. That is pretty much how most people online seem to communicate. The busty blond thing is a reference to the cliche of every fat 55 year old man online saying he is a young hot chick. Sorry you did not get that. Again, context would have helped you.


After having castigated the other poster, and outright calling him a liar, one would thing that you are above lying yourself, and so the fact that the venue is the internet should not permit you to lie yourself.


I guess I need to ask again. Is this post looping? When did I castigate any other poster for lying? SHOW ME WHERE THAT WENT DOWN OR ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT IT. Please tell me this does not come up a 3rd time in this post.


assuming you have a degree of integrity, that is.

Unless you start actually reading what I write and paying attention to it instead of misunderstanding and the opining on your ignorance, you would not be so worried about it.


The value of the question is to show the lengths you will go to in order to win the debate by illegitimate means.


I do not need to lie to win any debate. My opinion on the matter stands. If it is allowed to happen there, it spreads. That is how this crap works. I need to win my opinion on this? I did not even realize I was competing. I was just expressing myself, much like your hero that principal. You seem to have a problem with me doing it here where it is ok but you are all about him doing it there where it was actually not ok?

Please explain to me why you are supporting a man's freedom to speak about his religion all while trying to tell me I need to prove to you my opinion is valid? PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT CONCEPT TO ME.



Sorry. My sarcasm switch must be broke.


It had nothing to do with sarcasm and everything to do with your ignorance of Satanism and of what I have actually posted here.



No, I did. And you bit.


With a joke IMMEDIATE FOLLOWED by a reality check. Feel good about that? Did you catch me in something? You said something stupid - all my kids must be in high school if I say my kids go to that school. I pointed out why it was stupid and you call that biting? I would love to see your trophy shelf sometime.




Likewise, you could benefit from the same.


What have I not understood so far? I do not see anyone correcting me about my interpretation of their posts, INCLUDING YOU. So that is obviously just an angry little girl thing to say. Good thing you are not a Christian.



Nice. Now I'm 'stupid', simply because you can't carry your point. Resorting to name calling is sort of weak, isn't it?


Seriously, LEARN TO READ. I never called you stupid and if you could read, you would see that.



See above.


You must be the other guy because how can two different people get so much stuff in my post wrong?



No, nor did I say, or even imply, that it did. I merely stated that it must be rough having all your kids in high school. If you have ANY kids in high school, you should immediately recognize the truth in that statement.


Then I took it another way, considering your off topic remarks and vast lack of ability to read what I have actually written, I guess I finally got confused and messed up myself. Finally got me.


That's a pretty tortured path to try to salvage that statement.


Do you not know how the word "enjoy" can be used? Anyone who is embarking on an activity they love is surely enjoying it. Unless you think he hates his religion. I guess he could. What grade are you in? Do they not teach vocabulary and the many uses of words in school anymore? I guess you need to get me a grammar book and show me what is wrong with what I said because I am missing it.


'Shut up then'? Nice. Silencing those you disagree with is a hall mark. I'll let you figure out on your own what it's a hallmark OF.


Way to twist what I said. I said IF HE DOES NOT ENJOY IT HE SHOULD SHUT UP. Do you not get what that means? All I am saying is if you are doing something you do not like, then just stop doing it. I am not trying to shut anyone up. Jesus Christ! CAN PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE THINGS YOU REPLY TO????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Do try to follow along. we can keep the discussion current then, without having to backtrack to track down quotes you keep insisting on.


I was following along until you started misconstruing everything I have said. It got confusing. You have accused me of saying so many things I have not said, I apologize if it is hard to keep them all straight.



Oh yes, of course. I have references, too, but they don't really belong in this discussion.


Just asking since you keep telling me how good I am, I wanted to repay the favor but so far nothing demonstrated here warranted such. Never mind then.


Just more ridicule and smoke. You must feel your argument slipping away, judging by all the obfuscation you're throwing out.


Care to share one example of my "obfuscation?" or will this be like the quotes I asked for? Do you two really feel like you are getting anywhere by pretending I said things I did not and then responding to your new made up statements? How is that helping ANYTHING?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu

Nor have you been able to demonstrate otherwise.



I don't really care to point out flaws in your "analysis". The "prove me wrong" plea equates to proving a negative: not my burden. You can take your "analysis" to a lawyer though and let us know how it turns out. Until then the law of the land is clear and well-established.


It would appear not.


Fair enough. I rest my case.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by jinx880101
 

If it were available, it would be all over the internet, because the Constitution is. I was specifically asking what Constitutional provision stated that his actions were an unconstitutional violation.

The principal himself didn't cite any Constitutional provisions, but rather a supreme court decision.

The two are different things, as can bee seen by reading the opinions of dissenting justices.


Just out of curiosity...


...who started discussing whether or not it was constitutional? Where did that start exactly? OR is this a play around the separation of church and state thingy? Just curious.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by sirnex
 
What you, and many others, do not understand, is that it is the DUTY of every citizen to disobey a law which is deemed illegal. You see, The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence gives citizens the right to petition the goverment for a redress of grievences. Civil disobedence, such as that practiced by Ghandi and Martin Luther King, is one way to pave the way for such a petition. This Principal is just leading the way.


Technically, by those standards - all criminals are simply fulfilling their DUTY to disobey laws they feel are illegal.

Good old rapists and murderers out their being real Americans!



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Let's just simplify this a bit. Do people on here believe in separation of church and state or not?

Personally I believe in separation of church and state. I also believe in individuals religious freedoms.

A public high school football game is a state sponsored event. Therefore, holding a public prayer is out of line. However, if the players or fans want to get together to pray during the game, feel free. As long as it's not subjecting everyone to the prayer. You see this all the time after NFL games, which isn't even state sponsored. Everyone that wants to pray gets together and prays, but they don't make it mandatory for all players and they don't announce the prayer over the speakers for everyone to hear.

People need to see the line between state and private. You can have private gatherings at a state function. Feel free to practice, with in reason, your religion in a school or government event. No one is taking that away. The problem is when the state PROMOTES a specific religion. A prayer over the intercom at a state sponsored event is just that, promoting a religion.

Just keep it private. It's not that hard and it is much more respectful to other people that pay their taxes. When religious fundamentalists get bent out of shape and paranoid about this, it really makes me question if there isn't more of an agenda going on here. More than just wanting freedom to practice their religion.



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join