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

He took such authority while spewing remarks about other groups and had a hissy fit because he could not spew forth his religion of choice to the crowd.

I really have no "agenda" other than looking out for all the students and keeping my kids from being brainwashed into any religious cult. I would rather they decide that for themselves. I could care less about the "gospel" of the scribes and pharisees.

No this was not the same from my school district. A moment of silence for such and such was announced and a few minutes later the game started. Nobody went into a rant. Why is it so important to pray over other people. Some consider that prayer to be a curse upon them.

Right before this was implemented in my own school I caught my friend Sarah (a pagan) shaking off her shoes after the public led prayer and upon asking her why she said, "Christian prayer over us is like a curse and much like a spellbinding ritual." She was going through the symbolism of shaking off the prayer from herself. Some of the Cherokee in the crowd didn't care for it either.

I suppose it is more important to force proselytize though. Why not just chain people down and force conversion on them?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by toochaos4u

 

The difference is that unlike Jesus, neither the principal nor the teams that attended this game were claiming Messianic legacy. Further, your disingenuous hypothetical attempts to frame the principal as one who prayed over a loud speaker, of which he did not, but this fact only gets in the way of your own agenda, doesn't it? And that agenda had nothing at all to do with spreading the Gospel did it? The silent moment you spoke of from your own personal experience is precisely what happened at this event, so exactly what is your problem with it?

I also went to a religious school, and was constantly in trouble with the Nuns, and even the Priests for questioning much of the New Testament, and was actually suspended for three days for suggesting that if we were expected to do what Jesus would do, we should all be Jews. I am grateful for the superior education I got in that school, and while I was a constant source of consternation for the administrators and teachers, I was also respected and well liked. I attended a private school that was as equally concerned with teaching young minds to think for themselves, as they were teaching Gospel, and my suspension for questioning a Priest that day, was not for questioning, but for my petulant attitude, and Father Finley spent the rest of my time at that school, encouraging my inquisitive nature and teaching me to do so in a respectful manner.



[edit on 26-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by nenothtu

 

No? Then what was that garbage all about?

"Speaking for myself, this issue is about protection of free speech for everyone, and adherence to the Constitution as the touchstone of what's proper as it's written.

That protection extends to ALL citizens equally, regardless of their religion.
"

You've been defending a government worker for wanting to blast his religious convictions in a government capacity.

What do you not understand about government and it's role with religion? Maybe that's the issue, idk, but if we work together and work this out then perhaps we can come to an agreement on what a government worker can and can't do as a government worker.

The issue in question in that post was whether or not the government had taken away anyone's right to privately practice their religion. I've never suggested that to be the case.

I'm talking about the attempted squelching of public speech, not private practice.

What I understand about the government's role in religion is that the Constitution says, in the First Amendment, that the government has no power to make laws concerning religion, either for or against. It says, specifically, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

That pretty clearly states it's case, to me. Congress can neither pass a law establishing a State religion, nor can it prohibit the free exercise of a religion, as you would appear to desire in this case. It says congress can make NO laws in the matter. It doesn't make exceptions for government workers, allowing for the stifling of their religion, or their views on religion.

The prohibition is against Congress, and if we admit the 14th amendment as valid, and stretch it a bit, state legislative bodies by extension. That would be law making bodies, since only they, of course, are authorized to make laws, as is stated in that amendment. Elsewhere in the Constitution, it specifically forbids requiring a particular religious observance as a consideration for eligibility for duty, with the 'religious test' clause. A requirement that an individual submerge his religion would clearly be in violation, as that would be a religious test.

High School principals are not authorized to make law.

reply to post by toochaos4u


Isn't that always the case with the petty tyrant? Outside of their personal interest, they will declare they are "looking out" for others. I suppose we should all be grateful to your benign tyranny, whose only agenda is to "look out" for others. I could care less what you care or don't care about the Gospel, and it wasn't I who introduced them here, but you. You who could care less about them, for you did not introduce them to instruct merely to chastise those of whom you seek to suppress.

You claim your own personal experience was one where no one went into a rant, but it surely has not kept you from ranting in this thread, and you know what? I defend and support your right to rant. Therein lies the difference between us, you would seek to suppress those rants you don't like.

It has been you who has been Proselytizing, and disingenuously doing so by using passages from the Gospel in an attempt to suppress the freedom of worship.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


This isn't about what the principal said, it's about what you and he think he has the right to do or say.

I believe in the first amendment, but I also believe there should be separation of church and state. My right to free speech and freedom of religion doesn't give me the right to go into someone's home uninvited and make them listen to my religious views in an attempt to convert them to my religion. My freedom of religion does not give me the right to trespass on someone's property and harass them. The law comes first and I believe the law should be separation of church and state.

For you to imply that I am not for freedom of religion is ridiculous. My whole argument has been in favor of freedom of religion and speech PRIVATELY. The STATE should completely stay out of promoting and practicing religion. A high school football game, no matter how you want to spin it, is a state's event and a prayer to the Christian God over the intercom by the principal would be practicing Christianity. The STATE practicing CHIRSTIANITY. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. It has to do with what the roles of government should be. Practicing religion is not one of them.

If you have a problem with that then send your children to a PRIVATE school.

reply to post by Reflection


This thread is most certainly about what the principal said. As to what I think he has the right to do or say, I have said twice now directly to you and I will say it a third time and perhaps that will be the charm, all people have the right to do or say whatever they want as long as that does not disparage the right of any other person. That principal did not disparage anyone's rights. What he did, he did by right.

You claim you believe in the First Amendment and in the very same sentence you qualify the First Amendment to mean "separation of church and state" and what you mean by this has nothing at all to do with what Thomas Jefferson meant by this when he wrote it in a letter responding to the Danbury Baptists, who were clearly looking for legislative endorsement. You further continue your disingenuousness by yet another hypothetical where you describe you walking into another persons private property and trespass. This is always how it is with you petty tyrants, you constantly bait and switch. No one has the right to trespass upon another persons private property. No one. This is not what that principal has done, nor is it anywhere near what I have advocated. You are clearly confused.

I have not implied you are not for religious freedom, I have flat out stated it. Your advocacy of freedom of speech and religion be done only in private is hardly an advocacy of freedom. All tyrants want expression done in the privacy of ones own property, assuming tyrants allow private property, and all tyrants want to suppress public expression. This is not an advocacy of freedom, but a clear advocacy of oppression. The state has nothing to do with that principals actions and your attempts at framing that principals actions as being the state only underscores your confusion, and by confusion I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, as I strongly suspect you understand the obfuscation you are employing, and are just a petty tyrant.

I have made clear in several posts, I have a definite problem with public education and I bust my rear end off, to make sure my children will have the benefit of private schooling, and don't be so foolish as to assume they are in public school now. A high school football game is not a state event, and as long as petty tyrants like you keep insisting it is, you only strengthen my conviction that we abolish public schools. I am sick and tired of being taxed to fund your tyranny. Enough all ready. If you don't want freedom of expression in public schools, then join me in advocating ending the public school system, then we both get what we want. But this is not what you want, is it? You want to suppress, plain and simple, and you want to make damn sure everybody is taxed to fund your suppression.

Reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Prayer at football games do not includes asking God to help a team win. It is used to ask Him to protect all involved.

On that note, what right does a prayer infringe upon?


No one seems to be able to answer that question.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Prayer at football games do not includes asking God to help a team win. It is used to ask Him to protect all involved.

What is your point? If you read my post you would know this is precisely what I said. Are you attempting to misrepresent what I said?

On that note, it seems to me you are in agreement that no infringement of rights have happened. So, I wonder what the point of your initial statement was?

There is no one suppressing Christianity. Everyone that wishes to pray still can and still do. They do so at their leisure in private. My father is Christian and has a prayer closet as Jesus himself instructed.

I started with just saying what your Messiah specifically said. He said to pray in private and not make a spectacle of yourself as hypocrites do. I don't seek to suppress anything. I'm still speaking to you without malice and Christians can still pray in schools and I will fight for the right for them to do that.

I'm just retelling stories from my own human existence as always on here.
Nobody is suppressing your freedom to worship. You are promoting suppressing others and attempting to conform people to your theocratic ideals.

That is why separation of church and state is so important because anything else pulls focus from teaching and creates disharmony. We am fully capable of teaching my kids whatever religious/moral code that I wish and let them make up their own mind. The Christian kids prayed to themselves way back when and they are still doing it.

If Wiccans or whatever beliefs were in the majority would you want your children to attend their prayer services every game or every assembly? I would be against any beliefs taught at public schools not just Christian.

As I said before, "If you want a Christian based religious education there are schools for that." If you can't afford it speak to your church/principal of the school and they will most likely make arrangements for a work study program to attend. When my friend's parents couldn't afford they allowed the parents to come in during the weekends and his mother cleaned the school while his father did some minor outside work on the grounds (planting flowers, painting lines in the parking lot, mowing, etc.).












[edit on 27/5/10 by toochaos4u]

Reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

LOL. Relax. I must have hit the wrong reply button on my phone


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by toochaos4u


Your insistence that freedom of worship is not allowable in public is most certainly suppression. Further, your insistence that the state is something outside of the people is only more suppression. What is public is the domain of the people, not the government, which exists only to protect the individual rights of all. What your father does is irrelevant, and the public is in no way bound by what your father does.

You started with what Jesus said, and clearly have assumed his Messianic legacy reflects your perception of my beliefs. You used the New Testament, not out of respect for Jesus, but as a method to argue for suppression. A simple reading of the New Testament would make clear to you that Jesus was not in support of suppression. It would further make clear to you that Jesus lived in a theocratic society, where there was no such thing as separation of church and state, and that simple reading of the New Testament would also reveal to you that Jesus was not there to change that religion, but only to add to it.

You brought in the text of the New Testament, and used out of context, based upon presumptions you made about those who are defending a persons right to worship freely. I have no need to defend or act as any apologist to Christianity, and don't need you playing games where you hopelessly attempt to frame me as a Christian apologist. I am fighting for freedom, nothing more. Your lame interpretations of Jesus' words are not offered to represent your profound faith in that man, but offered to justify your own tyrannical views. You pretend that all you have to say is that you will fight to defend freedom of worship, but you certainly have not done so in this thread.

Your personal stories are most welcome, whether they be relevant or not, and I am well aware that no one is suppressing my rights, as I jealously guard them and assert them whenever necessary, just as that principal did and just as many in this thread have done. Your constant referral to an obscure reference in a letter written to the Danbury Baptists has nothing at all to do with the rule of law, nor the Supreme Law of the Land, and your constant use of that language is due to the fact that you can not rely on the language of The First Amendment to support your contentions.

You claim that separation of church and state is necessary because without it it would cause disharmony and pull focus away from teaching, but this claim clearly ignores the disharmony that exists, and the dramatic failures of public schools to do the simple task they were given, to educate. You constantly refer to your own children and what you are capable of teaching them as if this thread and that principal were teaching Christianity over a PA system instead of just one man using his right to speak freely and address the very real concerns he had with the tyranny of the federal government, and the leftist agenda that has permeated public education.

The fallacious hypothetical you and others use, dressed in what if's are also based upon presumptions. I have dated several Wiccan's and have no problems with their belief system, nor do I think Jesus would have ever had a problem with it...The Catholic Church, well that's a different matter, but I am not an apologist for the Catholic Church, nor Christianity, and the game of which this thread is about was not a part of any Catholic agenda. If Wiccan's were being denied their right to publicly worship how they see fit, and assuming such worship was not abrogating nor derogating any other rights, then I would just as vociferously defend their right as I do that principal's right. This is how simple it can be when your agenda is the defense of freedom.

As I have said before, if you want a left wing agenda driven school, then find a private school that fits that agenda, but don't expect me to be in support of a public institution mandated with education that wishes to indoctrinate any form of political agenda, whether it be left or right. This is why I continue to insist that public education is a bad idea.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Okay then, I will relax, and actually after I replied to you, I realized you were on your phone and actually considered precisely what you just suggested. Even so, it is important to keep clear my stance in this thread. Thanks for your reply though.

I hate religion and the people that get all up in arms about it. God is a fairy tale and Jesus is a myth and I'm not a christian so If I was at public school and my idiot principle started ranting about this meaningless garbage, I would walk out. Go to hell and take your christ cult with you.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



Your insistence that freedom of worship is not allowable in public is most certainly suppression. Further, your insistence that the state is something outside of the people is only more suppression. What is public is the domain of the people, not the government, which exists only to protect the individual rights of all. What your father does is irrelevant, and the public is in no way bound by what your father does.

(Which is completely fine if the prayer service is randomized to all beliefs representative of the people of that school. It is public domain of the people so it should represent them all.)

You started with what Jesus said, and clearly have assumed his Messianic legacy reflects your perception of my beliefs. You used the New Testament, not out of respect for Jesus, but as a method to argue for suppression.

(My beliefs in Jesus were never stated. I have great deal of respect for Jesus.)

A simple reading of the New Testament would make clear to you that Jesus was not in support of suppression. It would further make clear to you that Jesus lived in a theocratic society,

(Which we do not)

where there was no such thing as separation of church and state, and that simple reading of the New Testament would also reveal to you that Jesus was not there to change that religion, but only to add to it.

(He certainly did change the religion or created another. Christianity is nothing like the Jewish faith. If you ask a Jewish person they will tell you that the majority of Christians do not understand the Old Testament portion at all. He also condemned the church on many occasions and I believe that is all he condemned. I'm sure he would do the same now if he were alive. I'm sure he would be proud over the past misdeeds in his name and the cheap novelty trinkets circulated under his banner. Would he support forced prayer service? )


You brought in the text of the New Testament, and used out of context, based upon presumptions you made about those who are defending a persons right to worship freely.

(People can worship freely as always.How is it out of context when that is what the man specifically pointed out on how prayer should be done? Pharisees liked to make prayer loud as they do today as well.)

I have no need to defend or act as any apologist to Christianity, and don't need you playing games where you hopelessly attempt to frame me as a Christian apologist. I am fighting for freedom, nothing more.

(One's freedom is another man's bondage.)

Your lame interpretations of Jesus' words are not offered to represent your profound faith in that man, but offered to justify your own tyrannical views. You pretend that all you have to say is that you will fight to defend freedom of worship, but you certainly have not done so in this thread.

(Again you have no idea how I view Jesus because I never stated them. But, since you didn't ask I consider him a great teacher. Then by all means ask every student what their beliefs are and represent them all in the prayer services. If any parent objects let them fight with nerf rocks. The reason it was stopped in my old school was because it brought chaos. )

Your personal stories are most welcome, whether they be relevant or not, and I am well aware that no one is suppressing my rights, as I jealously guard them and assert them whenever necessary, just as that principal did and just as many in this thread have done. Your constant referral to an obscure reference in a letter written to the Danbury Baptists has nothing at all to do with the rule of law, nor the Supreme Law of the Land, and your constant use of that language is due to the fact that you can not rely on the language of The First Amendment to support your contentions.

(If it has nothing to do with the law of the land then it should not be unconstitutional. The letter to the Danbury Baptists represents intent. Represent them all or represent none. Because one belief is primarily focused on it oppresses the minority of other beliefs so their beliefs are being stepped on. I would be more in tune with you if you specified that all beliefs should be taught in schools. Although this does take up classwork time.)

You claim that separation of church and state is necessary because without it it would cause disharmony and pull focus away from teaching, but this claim clearly ignores the disharmony that exists, and the dramatic failures of public schools to do the simple task they were given, to educate.

(Right schools are messed up and one of the reasons in SC is experimental education styles that phase in and out like the wind. Does bringing religion on board fix mismanagement and poor teaching styles?)

You constantly refer to your own children and what you are capable of teaching them as if this thread and that principal were teaching Christianity over a PA system instead of just one man using his right to speak freely and address the very real concerns he had with the tyranny of the federal government, and the leftist agenda that has permeated public education.

(His intent was to rant because he couldn't hold a Christian prayer service over a stupid game. I stated that I could expose my kids to my own belief system and let them decide. It is not the school's job. I thought left VS right was made up to divide people. Tyranny comes from many places not just the federal government. )

The fallacious hypothetical you and others use, dressed in what if's are also based upon presumptions. I have dated several Wiccan's and have no problems with their belief system, nor do I think Jesus would have ever had a problem with it...The Catholic Church, well that's a different matter, but I am not an apologist for the Catholic Church, nor Christianity, and the game of which this thread is about was not a part of any Catholic agenda.

(Then how we see Jesus is not that much different. Nice to know there is some common ground. )

If Wiccan's were being denied their right to publicly worship how they see fit, and assuming such worship was not abrogating nor derogating any other rights, then I would just as vociferously defend their right as I do that principal's right. This is how simple it can be when your agenda is the defense of freedom.

(Then how many prayer services were held at that school for other beliefs or non beliefs? Wiccans were denied a public charity benefit here because the Christians threatened to pull out. They were denied church status for years. They had their license pulled to acquire a parcel of a public national forest for service because the Xtians threatened boycott and lawsuit. There ya go religious suppression happens every day. I am not Wiccan though. )

As I have said before, if you want a left wing agenda driven school, then find a private school that fits that agenda, but don't expect me to be in support of a public institution mandated with education to that wishes to indoctrinate any form of political agenda, whether it be left or right. This is why I continue to insist that public education is a bad idea.

(I thought left and right wing agendas were made up to divide people. The public education in a lot of places is ruled by the board of education and some have a "right wing agenda" if you want to call it that since they are republican and all. This is why for years in SC they preached abstinence only
sex education while they had one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation.

Sigh in the left wing groups I am called republican and in the republican corner I am called left wing. Where are those exact definitions? Public education can be good but, that depends on what district you are in or what they think you are in. My niece and nephew use my brother's resident address so they are in a better district. The lower middle class schools here are crap. I do agree. )

Originally posted by nenothtu

Why, because I'm not wrong in this case, of course!

But you cannot back it up? Wow, that seems pretty solid. I have not been attacking any religions in this thread and for you to say I have been is either a mistake or a lie. You pick which.

So I'm a 'liar' now? S'ok, I've been called worse, and I bet that's not hard to believe.

Well, let me see. I asked you to prove I did any of the things you accused me of and so far.........


...nada. So, you insist you made no mistake but you are clearly accusing me of stating something I never did. How is that not a lie? Prove me wrong. I have no problem proving anything I accuse you of. Why can you not do the same?

I already answered that, just above. I thought we were 'done' here, but we're still going to go in circles?

Nope, because you keep insisting that your lie about me is not a lie even though there is not one post by me in this thread to back up what you claimed. THAT IS A LIE.

To my mind - and this is just my opinion mind you - but there is, in my mind, a pretty big difference between 'being honest' and performing tricks on command just to be kept busy.

You are so full of crap. I am not asking you to perform tricks. I am asking you to show me where I ever said any of what you claim I did. Do you not see the difference?

Why is it such a problem for you to back up a claim about me?

It should be easy enough to confirm all by yourself. There's a little button at the bottom of each of your posts entitled 'thread'. Clicking on that will pop up all of your posts in this thread. It's not hard, and there are only 3 pages of your posts to wade through.

I NEVER SAID WHAT YOU CLAIM I DID. What are you not getting about this??????

I LOOKED THROUGH ALL OF MY POSTS AND FOUND NOT ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM. NOT ONE!!!!!!!


What is so hard to understand about this?????

YOU MADE A CLAIM ABOUT ME.

YOU NEED TO BACK THAT CLAIM UP OR ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.

That is the only HONEST thing you can do. Is there a reason you feel being dishonest is a better way to go?

If I just make up things you said, does it work the same way? Do I get to say I am not a liar and it is your job to go find the quotes in question?

I find it hard to believe you are this ignorant.

You really don't need my help for this.

Going through them, and exercising the honesty we both value (whether you think I do or not, I DO), you will see that there are some quite vituperatively condescending comments there, directed primarily at christians,

SHOW ME ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JUST ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somewhat at me and a few others (and so not religiously motivated at all, eh?), but I really don't mind that.

Of course not, because you are making it up.

I have pretty thick skin, and enough self confidence that you can't say much to get under that thick skin. I try to take it in the spirit of the debate.

So I can lie about you the same way you and JP lie about me then? That would be cool with you?

I see... or maybe not....

Hey, if you want to make FALSE accusations and then refuse to back them up, you are a liar. That is not exactly a constructive or interesting path to take for me. If you want to engage in deceptive practices in order to promote the merits of Christian speech, you are going to continue to fail as you have here.

"You people"? You aren't including ME in that, are you? Are we going to go there AGAIN?

Sure am. YOU PEOPLE as in you and JP. YOU TWO PEOPLE have resorted to making up things I have said in order to make your point. I do not want people who need to lie to make a point teaching children ANYTHING. If the shoe fits......

No, really, I'm not fit to carry a christian's sandals.

Clearly. You are out of your league here and I doubt any real Christians really appreciate you and JP lying in their stead.

Edit: trying to fix those damnable quote tags again!

[edit on 2010/5/26 by nenothtu]

So let me see how this works....

You said you think homosexuals should be allowed to put on a live sex show before each game, right? You said that Christians all lose their virginity to sheep, right? How dare you say such things.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What is your point? If you read my post you would know this is precisely what I said. Are you attempting to misrepresent what I said?

Still looking for any post where I mentioned the first amendment? It is no fun when people toss your stones back into your glass house, is it?

Originally posted by guyopitz
I hate religion and the people that get all up in arms about it. God is a fairy tale and Jesus is a myth and I'm not a christian so If I was at public school and my idiot principle started ranting about this meaningless garbage, I would walk out. Go to hell and take your christ cult with you.

Well! Ain't you just a little dear!

That 'get along' attitude will get you far, son. That, together with your avatar, with the gas mask and the rough talk, just kind of makes me giggle.

I bet dollars to donuts that when TSHTF, you'll not last two days. Been there, done that, checked it off. Seen a gob of fine young bad-asses die cryin' for momma.

So you hate folks that get up in arms? Imagine that. I don't care if you're a jew, a muslim, an atheist, buddhist, or hindu. You still got as much right to spout BS and bluster as anybody.

And they do too.

I've not much doubt I'm hell bound. See ya there.

reply to post by Anti-Evil


Wow, great post.

Hooray for that principled principal, and hooray for Jesus.

[edit on 5/27/10 by Afterall]

reply to post by toochaos4u

(Which is completely fine if the prayer service is randomized to all beliefs representative of the people of that school. It is public domain of the people so it should represent them all.)

Which is to say that you support freedom of worship as long as everyone worships in the way you dictate, which of course, could never be legislated as such since The First Amendment expressly forbids it.

(My beliefs in Jesus were never stated. I have great deal of respect for Jesus.)

Simply stating it so does not make it true, but I am not here to preach Christian ethics to you, only to fight for the freedom. Your beliefs about Jesus are not relevant, your beliefs about suppressing others beliefs are.

(Which we do not)

Which is precisely why your beliefs about Jesus are irrelevant. We do not live in a theocratic state, nor do we live in a state that allows you to dictate how others worship.

(He certainly did change the religion or created another. Christianity is nothing like the Jewish faith. If you ask a Jewish person they will tell you that the majority of Christians do not understand the Old Testament portion at all. He also condemned the church on many occasions and I believe that is all he condemned. I'm sure he would do the same now if he were alive. I'm sure he would be proud over the past misdeeds in his name and the cheap novelty trinkets circulated under his banner. Would he support forced prayer service? )

Jesus most certainly did not change the Judaic faith, nor did he create another one. The creation of Christianity happened after Jesus' execution, by Romans who later adopted the Christian faith. Jesus was a Jew and never once used the term Christianity. I have spoken to many Jewish people and hear all kinds of assertions, that is the thing about faith, and religion, everybody has an opinion. Jesus never once condemned The Temples, nor did he condemn Jewish law, and only sought to offer his interpretation of that law. Jesus did condemn the money changers, he did take to task many Pharisees, and The Sanhedrin, but he never condemned the Judaic religion. It is interesting to note that you offer so much certainty on how Jesus would act today were he here now. Whence comes such certainty? Your disingenuous remark about forced prayer service is again just more obfuscation pretending something that does not exist does.

(People can worship freely as always.How is it out of context when that is what the man specifically pointed out on how prayer should be done? Pharisees liked to make prayer loud as they do today as well.)

There are four Testaments that account for the teachings of Jesus, you referenced a minuscule fraction of them to push forth your own agenda. I haven't seen many Pharisee's in the U.S. so wouldn't know how loud they are about it. I have seen loud Jews, I have seen loud Christians, and I have seen loud Muslims, and even a few loud Satanists, and the volume by which they speak is their right. A right I willingly fight for, unless that volume, of course, is disturbing peace, but I have just never seen it get that loud.

(One's freedom is another man's bondage.)

This is nothing more than the tyrants double speak. Freedom does not bind, and no one is placed in bondage because of universal freedom and rights.

(Again you have no idea how I view Jesus because I never stated them. But, since you didn't ask I consider him a great teacher. Then by all means ask every student what their beliefs are and represent them all in the prayer services. If any parent objects let them fight with nerf rocks. The reason it was stopped in my old school was because it brought chaos. )

I do not care how you view Jesus, this is your concern alone. You are right I didn't ask, and did not need to read your views on Jesus, and they do not sugar coat your advocacy of tyranny. You continually speak of the chaos brought in public schools by religion, but continue to ignore my assertions that public schools are the problem, and that they should be abolished, or at the very least funded some other way than through taxation.

(If it has nothing to do with the law of the land then it should not be unconstitutional. The letter to the Danbury Baptists represents intent. Represent them all or represent none. Because one belief is primarily focused on it oppresses the minority of other beliefs so their beliefs are being stepped on. I would be more in tune with you if you specified that all beliefs should be taught in schools. Although this does take up classwork time.)

The First Amendment has everything to do with the Law of the Land, and a letter to the Danbury Baptists is not that law. No minority is being oppressed by what the principal said at that game. No minority is being oppressed because members of Congress pray before going into session. No minority is being oppressed because a chaplain is hired to counsel members of Congress. No minority is being oppressed if a President declares; "God Bless America." Your insistence that this freedom to do so is not a right, is most certainly an advocacy of oppression. You are not in tune with me at all and would only be more in tune with me if you also began advocating doing away with public schools and simply letting the private sector handle education.

(Right schools are messed up and one of the reasons in SC is experimental education styles that phase in and out like the wind. Does bringing religion on board fix mismanagement and poor teaching styles?)

I am assuming by SC, you mean South Carolina, and not the Supreme Court, or some other reference that relies on such an abbreviation. I do not care why you think public schools are failing, I know that they are. I know they are a drain on public funds, and that they seem to facilitate tyrants of all colors who believe because they rely upon public funds that everyone is entitled to dictate how they operate. Such nonsense would never happen, and does not happen in private schools. I am not advocating bringing religion on board of any public schools I am advocating getting rid of public schools.

(His intent was to rant because he couldn't hold a Christian prayer service over a stupid game. I stated that I could expose my kids to my own belief system and let them decide. It is not the school's job. I thought left VS right was made up to divide people. Tyranny comes from many places not just the federal government. )

That principal did not hold a Christian prayer service over that game, and only invited people to pray before the game began. He did not insist what way to pray, and never suggested only the Christians should pray, or that all who were in attendance pray in only the Christian way. This is your fiction, and it has nothing to do with what actually happened. I know tyranny comes from many places, I am continually reading your advocacy of it, and suspect you support it in your local and state government as well. Left versus right was not made up, it exists. I care not which is better or right, neither has a place in education as being the sole method of education. While private schools should have the freedom to choose which ideologies they teach, I have the freedom to choose a school that I believe best facilitates learning and thinking for oneself.

(Then how we see Jesus is not that much different. Nice to know there is some common ground. )

I would much prefer that our common ground was predicated on freedom and not how we view Jesus, but if this is the best that can be accomplished at this point, I will accept that as a beginning.

(Then how many prayer services were held at that school for other beliefs or non beliefs? Wiccans were denied a public charity benefit here because the Christians threatened to pull out. They were denied church status for years. They had their license pulled to acquire a parcel of a public national forest for service because the Xtians threatened boycott and lawsuit. There ya go religious suppression happens every day. I am not Wiccan though. )

You continue to stubbornly stay with this useless advocacy of public schools. I want universal freedom and respect for rights for all, and I am not seeing how the continuance of public schools facilitates that. Do you understand? Your arguments only strengthen my views and advocacy of ending the public school system as it is today. There should not be any such thing as public charity either. Charity is a personal choice, what you are referring to is public welfare, which is a form of legal plunder. Plunder is plunder, regardless of who is plundering. The only people being denied "church status" are those seeking permission for it from a tax collection agency. How absurd is that, turning to a tax collector for validation of religious beliefs?

You keep telling me what you think about left/right paradigms and I am not here to change your belief on that paradigm, only to say that they have no place in public schools, yet they are there. End this by ending the public school system as it is today. I am happy to find agreement with you on the failure, if at the very least, of many public schools. I will continue to advocate ending this system and the tyranny it fosters. Let parents decide which schools, if any, their children will attend, as the right to parental guidance is as much as right as is freedom of speech, religion, or the right to keep and bear arms.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

You have not just been snidely attacking religion, far worse you have been snidely attacking freedom and nenothtu's obvious efforts of actually quoting you only goes to show what a waste of time that is.

He has made no effort to quote what he claims I have said. I am all kinds of willing to look at quotes of me saying these things.

You think that all you have to do is call others a liar, and this will some how hide your own equivocations. That principal is protected by both a federal and state Constitution that say's he can say whatever the hell he wants over the PA, as long as he isn't causing anyone harm, and there is no evidence that his comments caused anyone harm.

You think all you have to do is claim I said something I never did and then act indignant when I ask you where I ever said any such thing.

It seems pretty simple to me. If you accuse me of saying something, show me where I said it. Why is that so hard for you?

Both of you went on and on and on and on with responses to crap I never said. You also both got specific.

YOU in particular claimed I was using a first amendment argument. I simple asked you to show me where I ever said any such thing. I never did. You cannot show me doing so.

Why is asking you to back up what you claim about me so hard?