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: 32
113
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jinx880101
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I hope you are not implying that I'm bitching and moaning.... I'm giving you an example of how this affects the lives of young children.


No sir, not at all. Obviously, we were raised in different areas (and unless I miss my guess, even different countries) and probably different times as well. Certainly we are going to have different experiences of life. You gave an example from your experience, and that's not in any way invalidated. Likewise, I gave an example from my experience, and as you did, elaborated on how that affected a child on into adulthood, until this very day.

I in no way intended to diminish your experience, my intention was to provide a different perspective.




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 





This has been an exhausting thread, but that tends to happen when there is a heated topic involving religion. I appreciate ALL comments because it makes me think. That's why I joined this site. To be mentally challenged and stimulated.


So far this is the closest you've come to speaking the truth, outside of honestly speaking your opinion, and this thread has been exhausting, it is a heated topic, and your appreciation is duly noted.




Just because I believe that state and church should be separate doesn't mean I don't believe in the first amendment. I think separation of church and state should be a law. Not because it oppresses people, but because it protects people from a government run by a religion. I believe government should have certain roles. Protecting the people is one of them, practicing religion is not.


What you have consistently failed to do is show how your understanding of "separation of church and state" can exist in harmony with the First Amendment. The government run by a religion that you speak of just does not exist, unless Proto and his "All Roads Lead to Rome" thread is relevant, and perhaps it is and should be discussed here. However, the prima facie evidence supports the contention that the U.S. government, neither federal nor state, is run by a religion. Your assertions that the principal was acting in a governmental role when speaking at that game is false. It may be your opinion, and I will fight for your right to speak your opinion, but I do not have to agree with it, and I don't.




The individuals with in the state should have the same rights as everyone, but they should know when and when not to exercise those rights. For instance, a judge could have deep religious views, but it is his duty to put those biases aside because, as a representative of the state, he must be objective or the integrity of the state breaks down. The same should apply for public school teachers. There is a difference between exercising their rights as the state and as an individual. It's a fine line and sometimes it's hard to see, but that's part of the deal when you work or volunteer for the state.


Individuals in any state do have rights. Whether they exercise those rights is up to them. However, your assertion that people should know when and when not to exercise their rights misunderstands the nature of rights, and the universal nature of which you pay lip service to. You dictating when and when not a person should exercise their rights, is precisely that dictating, which is a form of dictatorship, even if it be only your opinion, that opinion is rife with dictatorship, another word for tyranny. All you can do is continue to blur the line between state and private individual, and repeat it ad nauseum in hopes that people will grasp your "intelligence", but it is not intelligence you are offering when you ignore the legal parameters of state, as opposed to the natural parameters of a person, it is merely propaganda.




This is not a threat to Christianity. It just means that the state should not be religious. How can one have freedom of religion when the very government that supports them is biased towards one particular religion?


I have not read much where anyone has declared this a threat to Christianity, and indeed, I am not alone in that as the big fat furry Texan has declare the same. Like that ever so likable big fat furry Texan, I tell you know that what is perceived as a threat is the threat to freedom. It is ironically those who have a problem with Christianity who keep attempting to frame this as a debate between Christians and secularists, but this is not that, it is a debate about freedom. To support my contentions that those who are arguing to curtail freedom in the name of secularism are the ones who continually attempt to bring Christianity into the debate, I offer your final paragraph of the post I am replying to:




I'm sure most Christians won't agree with this because they believe their religion is the only true religion. I know this because I used to be an Evangelical Christian. Up until I realized that morality does not filter through Christianity. Morality comes from the heart that we are all inherently born with. As opposed to the Christian idea that we are inherently born immoral. If anything that is my "religion" and I want to live in a state that supports me as equally as it supports Christians.


This thread is not about Christianity, not even about religion, it is about freedom.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Are you apologizing to me? If so, no need to. I wasn't upset. Just clearing the air.


No, I was just making public admission of error, in that it was pointed out how I may have misread your post, and I acknowledged that.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


No you shouldn't have to miss any of the event. When you pay your ticket price, you pay for the whole show.


So then, as a good American, you have a choice to make: a stand, or a rational decision. Are you truly that offended that someone would pray openly? And if so, should you really take that right away from them?

No one religion is being given any leeway insomuch as the customs of that community are being followed. It isn't about having anyone else hear your prayer, it is about just saying one in general. It is communion. If you sit down with someone for dinner, and they want to "say grace" first, will you get up and leave the table?

It just seems like, to compound a lousy dupreme court decision (that was originally a type-o, but i decided to leave it, as it just seems to fit so well), rational people can just be a little more tolerant of each other. No, i am not Christian....and i STILL don't see why people get so up in arms.

The fallacy of the "separation of church and state" has been warped to the point that folks honestly think that you do not have a right to express anything religiously in public. That isn't America. Maybe Amerika, but not America.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 


Ummm...slavery was not part of the fabric of society. You saying that shows that you are just grasping at straws here.

Do some research. Check some facts. Find out just exactly how many US citizens, as a percentage of the whole, owned slaves.

That was so ludicrous as to make it nearly impossible to take anything else posted seriously. Really. I mean, i could go over it with a fine tooth comb to make sure you aren't slipping some other fallacy through....but i am not expending that kind of effort.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
And, for you JohnnyElohim, if we are not going to believe a certain part of the article, such as the statement that everyone else joined eachother in prayer, then why should we believe ANY of it? What's the argument for?


Sorry to leave you hanging there, this thread has just exploded. I think it's fair to interpret the material posted as meaning the event really did occur but was report on by a biased party. In fact, I think that's a very clear and unbiased reading. Statistically it strikes me as incredibly unlikely that literally everyone there bowed their head in prayer.



Isn't that the argument people use to discount the Bible?


I'm not sure I follow you here, can you elaborate?



The only thing I am trying to get through to y'all is that YOU are the ones trying to silence people and yet you will be the same people to cry that you can't have your free speech and your own ways without self-proclaimed christians always ragging on you!


Who am I trying to silence? What exactly are you referring to? A quote would be nice.



Do you wish to stoop down to the level of the people you detest so much?

How ironic!


Who exactly do I detest? Or have you made this assumption because I proposed that a lot of people would find it distasteful if roles were reversed? It sounds to me like you are painting with a very broad brush indeed.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





Ummm...slavery was not part of the fabric of society. You saying that shows that you are just grasping at straws here.


Thanks for making that point my friend, not only does the proclivity towards pointing to slavery in order to dismiss inalienable rights only appear as if it is in support of slavery, it is a fallacious argument and does a great disservice to those who were not slaves and who were born free, not just prior to the Civil War, but even before, and while virtually all of them were in one way or another denied their fundamental and inalienable rights, the were not slaves, but were free, not just in terms of bondage, but as thinkers as well.

Further, only those benevolent tyrants, are the ones who love to frame the prohibition of slavery as being some government granted right being given to people not white, and this is why the issue of slavery is used ad nauseum by them, to support their own contentions that rights are legal fictions granted people and not wholly existing and preexisting government.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



The fallacy of the "separation of church and state" has been warped to the point that folks honestly think that you do not have a right to express anything religiously in public. That isn't America. Maybe Amerika, but not America.


Oh come now, that's a cockamamie BS argument, you know it, I know it, every educated American knows it.

Separation of church and state means just that, a separation of church and state. No one working for the government should be allowed to blast their religious convictions whilst working in their official capacity. When not at work, go for it. When working as a principal being paid by the state, keep it to yourself and don't call for everyone to pray to your personal deity of choice/indoctrination on the taxpayers dime.

It has nothing to do with people not being allowed to freely believe in whatever deity they want in a public setting, nor to discuss it, nor to pray to it. The fallacy is this idiotic notion that enforcing a law already in existence is somehow infringing on peoples rights, as it is NOT doing any such thing. Religion has no place in government at all, that is why we formed this f-ing nation to begin with. The principal works for the government. I find it ridiculous that people are still defending his stupidity and ignorance of American law and history.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You are so full of crap. Seriously. You two have stretched, twisted, and outright lied so much that you are little more than a joke. Neither of you can even stay on topic. Your arguments consist entirely of making up things I said and then refusing to show where I ever said them.

Go lie to someone else for Jesus.

The simple fact that neither of you can differentiate between knocking specific people for failing to live up to the religion they claim and knocking religion are two different things shows that you are either not smart enough to have this discussion or so stuck in your agenda that you have no clue how to respond to anything off script.

I simply asked either one of you to quote me saying WHAT YOU CLAIMED I SAID.

Neither of you can do it, instead you offer excuses. Why say I said something I never said then? What purpose does lying about what I said serve? How is it helping Christianity?

Since all you can do is lie about what I have said and then cry when I ask you to prove it, go away. Just go away.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Most religions believe in a creator. We are given thise rights by that creator. I say God because I believe He created us.

Those without the belief of a creator obviously have the same rights, though they are not given by anyone because they do not believe anyone created them


I love running in circles.

AGAIN, LET ME ASK THEN...


If my rights were granted by me and yours were granted by some god, then are our rights different?

If not, then why bother claiming yours are god granted when they are no better than my human granted rights?

Do you honestly not get what I am asking you?



What the hell are you on about? Nothing of the sort was ever stated. That is a fallacy in and of itself.

[edit on 5/27/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]


Uh huh, you just stated it again. You said that some people have god granted rights and some people have human granted rights. Please tell me what I am missing.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Are you really that dense?

The rights enumerated in the Constitution can't be infringed upon. Period.

Speech is in There. Driving is not.

Do some research before you spout off.


Are you really that dense? Show me where in the constitution it guarantees the freedom of ANY SPEECH ANY PLACE ANY TIME.

It is against the law to call 911 and report a false crime - SPEECH.

It is against the law to make death threats to a person - SPEECH.

It is against the law to shout FIRE in a crowded theater - SPEECH.

Are these things specifically delineated in the constitution?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


No one is missing anything, and if they are the onus is on you to be more effective at communicating.


I am not sure how I can ask it any more simply. It is a straightforward question to the post it was addressed to. I have noticed the tendancy in these threads of people to pretend not to understand, drag something on for pages, and keep it dusty until it will no longer make sense no matter what you do. If you did not get it the first couple of times, I really have clue how to make it make more sense.


It seems as though you are equating driving with the constitution. If i am incorrect, please clarify.


You are incorrect.


Yes, there are laws. The constitution is where they start, and what isn't covered there is left to the states to decide. The basis that people say this principle acted wrongly is the constitution.


This would be why I asked specifically when I did. The poster did not say anything about the constitution at that point. They simply said the principal was wrong. They were then asked to show why, using the constitution.

I am simply asking why it has to be in the constitution to be wrong. There are state laws as well as FEDERAL laws not in the constitution. Lots of things are WRONG without being in the constitution. I am asking you people defending this man why YOU are using the constitution.

Get it yet?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Freedom of speech. If he wants to rant about his love life, he may do so . . . but I suspect he will not have a job for long after.


Actually, he does not have the right to discuss his love life in that capacity. Either way, if he lost his job for that - you would be ok with it. Losing his job over this would be wrong? What is the difference?


What right is one infringing on if one prays over the PA? Does that cause harm to your life, liberty, or property? Anyone?


Yes because it sets up the premise that I am not at a CHRISTIAN football game, for a CHRISTIAN school, surrounded by CHRISTIANS practicing CHRISTIANITY. Tell me how you would like sending your kids to PUBLIC school an then going to the first football game to find out you were the only one NOT a Satanist. Would you really like knowing that your tax dollars are being used to teach your kids that everyone normal prays to Satan? Why should I have to be made to feel that way about your god?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Why can't you? As long as it wouldn't violate decency laws, you certainly can.


How boring is your love life that details of it would NOT violate decency laws? Please explain to me how you tell a crowd of families and schoolchildren the appropriate way to discuss sex with your wife.


But then you have to ask yourself....would you do that to a paying audience? And if you did, would you expect them to come back as future customers?


If they paid to see a football game and wanted to see more football games and knowing how important high school football is to them, I would know they will be back next week and I get paid whether anyone buys a ticket or not.

That is the point right there. If the principal were to suffer financially because his own business suffers due to his antics, then hey thats the free market and his problem.

THIS IS PUBLIC SCHOOL.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Reflection
 


So I will ask you again. If some Guy gets up in front of Congress saying that the sky is green, does that make it officially sanctioned? Does that make it law?


Ummm, I suppose it does. Wow, I'm glad they have never done that!!111



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
How boring is your love life that details of it would NOT violate decency laws? Please explain to me how you tell a crowd of families and schoolchildren the appropriate way to discuss sex with your wife.


Attempting to question my love life, and erecting a strawman doesn't work. You made the hypothetical, i just humored you. It is up to you to figure out how to lend credence to your ridiculous hypothetical.

But if taking a moment to answer your completely unrelated and silly hypothetical will result in you insulting me, then i guess i can ignore your posts. I mean, really...how low are you going to stoop to try to prop up your ill conceived notion?

BTW, any sarcasm i may have included with this statement:


But then you have to ask yourself....would you do that to a paying audience? And if you did, would you expect them to come back as future customers?


Completely went over your head. Predictable? Possibly.




If they paid to see a football game and wanted to see more football games and knowing how important high school football is to them, I would know they will be back next week and I get paid whether anyone buys a ticket or not.

That is the point right there. If the principal were to suffer financially because his own business suffers due to his antics, then hey thats the free market and his problem.

THIS IS PUBLIC SCHOOL.


Please reference posts made by JPZ to learn why this is irrelevant and a fallacy.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
This is related: I call it Gasoline for this discussion...
another school incident ... and again - Your Fired but your not~ its the law~

video.foxnews.com...


This deserves its own thread - but it's so related to this topic. I just cant seperate the two... its a sad day for religous tolerance


[edit on 27-5-2010 by Anti-Evil]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


No one is missing anything, and if they are the onus is on you to be more effective at communicating.


I am not sure how I can ask it any more simply. It is a straightforward question to the post it was addressed to. I have noticed the tendancy in these threads of people to pretend not to understand, drag something on for pages, and keep it dusty until it will no longer make sense no matter what you do. If you did not get it the first couple of times, I really have clue how to make it make more sense.


It seems as though you are equating driving with the constitution. If i am incorrect, please clarify.


You are incorrect.


Yes, there are laws. The constitution is where they start, and what isn't covered there is left to the states to decide. The basis that people say this principle acted wrongly is the constitution.


This would be why I asked specifically when I did. The poster did not say anything about the constitution at that point. They simply said the principal was wrong. They were then asked to show why, using the constitution.

I am simply asking why it has to be in the constitution to be wrong. There are state laws as well as FEDERAL laws not in the constitution. Lots of things are WRONG without being in the constitution. I am asking you people defending this man why YOU are using the constitution.

Get it yet?


Yes, i get it. I had just assumed that the repeated postings of the Tennesee state law regarding this by JPZ was read and understood.

My apologies. But, please, go read it. It was recently posted about on page 30-32. It will help to clarify your misunderstanding.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



The fallacy of the "separation of church and state" has been warped to the point that folks honestly think that you do not have a right to express anything religiously in public. That isn't America. Maybe Amerika, but not America.


Oh come now, that's a cockamamie BS argument, you know it, I know it, every educated American knows it.

Separation of church and state means just that, a separation of church and state. No one working for the government should be allowed to blast their religious convictions whilst working in their official capacity. When not at work, go for it. When working as a principal being paid by the state, keep it to yourself and don't call for everyone to pray to your personal deity of choice/indoctrination on the taxpayers dime.

It has nothing to do with people not being allowed to freely believe in whatever deity they want in a public setting, nor to discuss it, nor to pray to it. The fallacy is this idiotic notion that enforcing a law already in existence is somehow infringing on peoples rights, as it is NOT doing any such thing. Religion has no place in government at all, that is why we formed this f-ing nation to begin with. The principal works for the government. I find it ridiculous that people are still defending his stupidity and ignorance of American law and history.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by sirnex]


While i told you would not respond to you (way back on page 7) and i have ignored your replies to me, at this point i would like to ask you where in our constitution the phrase "separation of church and state" is written. Or anything close to that phrase.

I know that if you quote the first amendment, in its entirety, it also guarantees free speech. So there is a conflict right there, if we take your interpretation of "separation of church and state" to be applied to this amendment. note, before we go any further, that this phrase is not constitutional, and amounts to an interpretive catchphrase, which is being distorted here.

The person who wrote the first amendment, with his own pen, clarified what he meant by it. And it was not to keep a local official from leading people in prayer at a sporting event, or anything even close to it.

Your assertion that "religion has no place in government at all" flies in the face of the founding principles of our nation. All they wanted was to keep the "state" from imposing compulsory religion. They never intended for idiots to be protected from the words of other people. This concept is covered under "Let the buyer beware", which means just that. Don't buy into it, and if you do, beware of the risks.

The whole idea that the oficials of our nation must claim godlessness in order to "not shove religion down the throats" of the People is silly. It does not claim this. Nor does it claim that when a person accepts a job as a school official, that he gives up his right to free speech.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
its from an old chain e-mail, i received it a few years ago



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join