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

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

That must be a gift. Moving the target like that. So, the fact that he is pushing ANY religion all of a sudden isn't bothersome? What about the poor atheists? or agnostic? how about those satanists....they despise God, right? Consistency. Find some consistency. Without it, how do you expect to be seen as credible?

I am not moving target-I have been saying this over and over.

What don't you get about, 'etc, etc'?

Quite petty aren't you?

reply to post by jinx880101


You are flat out misrepresenting the Constitution to mean something it doesn't expressly or implicitly say, and it most certainly is due to your conditioning, which was most likely caused by an education in a public school.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
how about those satanists....they despise God, right?

The ignorance in this thread can be blinding at times.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You clearly did not link the page I provided that gives examples of past prayers invoking Jesus' name. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you are squelch on a bet?

Yeah, I was busy. Maybe a bit later- I've seen enough of that on this thread and it still won't change anything we are arguing about. The constitution is clearly against the prayer to any specified God.

Here is the link to my quotes earlier. Sorry bout that- I'm in a hurry.
www.usconstitution.net...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You are flat out misrepresenting the Constitution to mean something it doesn't expressly or implicitly say, and it most certainly is due to your conditioning, which was most likely caused by an education in a public school.

WHATEVER! I am done here. You are so bloody ignorant. The only way you can grab someones attention is by personally attacking them.

Think what you want, do what you want, believe what you want- I don't give a damn.

I am tired of your snide comments!

GET A LIFE!

reply to post by jinx880101


So, only half of the first amendment is true? About religion? Free speech is ignored?

The constitution is the document that guides our laws. The activist judges that have ignored the part about free speech, instead focused on religion. And this is the issue. This is what we are saying is wrong.

Either you cannot limit free speech, or you can. And since the first amendment says you cannot, then it seems very clear to me.

Keep in mind, i am a flaming patriot. I get teary eyed during the national anthem. If i see a child not standing at attention for the anthem, they will be told of it. I am the guy that walks up to soldiers, and thanks them.

reply to post by jinx880101


Okay, but while you clearly have the time to demand I grow up, but not the time to read the links I provided that demonstrably refute your claims, I have taken the time to read Good News Club v. Milford Central School, rather than take the word of some summation written by somebody else, and guess what?

Permitting the Club to meet on the school’s premises would not have violated the Establishment Clause. Establishment Clause defenses similar to Milford’s were rejected in Lamb’s Chapel, supra, at 395–where the Court found that, because the films would not have been shown during school hours, would not have been sponsored by the school, and would have been open to the public, not just to church members, there was no realistic danger that the community would think that the district was endorsing religion–and in Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 272—273, and n. 13–where a university’s forum was already available to other groups.

www.law.cornell.edu...

I used the bold feature to make it easier for you to see that open to the public was part of that holding, and reasoning to rule in Good News Club's favor. You still owe me a lemonade darlin', but I understand you are busy now, you can pay up later.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
how about those satanists....they despise God, right?

The ignorance in this thread can be blinding at times.

Let me clarify....people i have met who are satanists follow concepts of desecration. i realize that there are some people who call themselves satanists as well that see it differently, and scoff at these people.

something else must be blinding you. it isn't ignorance. perhaps is it mismanagment of comprehension?

Originally posted by jinx880101
. The constitution is clearly against the prayer to any specified God.

Here is the link to my quotes earlier. Sorry bout that- I'm in a hurry.
www.usconstitution.net...

What?

So, how do we have "freedom of speech" if we are stifling it? How? No one has explained this to me.

And, further, when we have the very hand that wrote that portion of the constitution writing a paper explaining exactly what the first amendment meant, it is exactly NOT what the Supreme Court has managed to rule, or what you are supporting.

The Constitution is absolutely not against any form of prayer anywhere. That is not free speech. No way, no how. Saying that only leaves a HUGE conflict in the 1st Amendment.

Free, or not free. Simple. One is constitutional, the other isn't.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
how about those satanists....they despise God, right?

The ignorance in this thread can be blinding at times.

Let me clarify....people i have met who are satanists follow concepts of desecration. i realize that there are some people who call themselves satanists as well that see it differently, and scoff at these people.

Ah, so you hang out with teenagers who call themselves Satanists but do not adhere to any known and established Satanic religion.

something else must be blinding you. it isn't ignorance. perhaps is it mismanagment of comprehension?

I wish people could spell correctly when attempting to be witty and mock my intelligence. Perhaps you should stop hanging out with teenagers and then making ignorant blanket statements based on what your drinking buddies tell you.

reply to post by jinx880101

WHATEVER! I am done here. You are so bloody ignorant. The only way you can grab someones attention is by personally attacking them.

You entered into this thread of your own free will, and chose to misrepresent the law...The Supreme Law of the Land, and because you have been called on that, you now hope to take that challenge of mistake of fact, and misinterpretation of law as a personal attack. It is you who is attacking freedom and doing so in a deceitful way. You have illustrated how willing you are to speak out and make assumptions without bothering to verify the facts, and you then get huffy and call me snide, while ironically getting snide with me. We get that it is your personal opinion that speech and religion should be limited, and I for one am intent on pointing out no such restrictions or limitations can be done legally. If you choose to take that as an attack, this is your choice. You are free to feel however you want.

This will be my last response to this thread. By all means you can continue to sit here all day and night and battle it out.

The Good News decision is one of many Supreme Court decisions that weave a tangled web when it comes to school prayer. One thing is clear: the Supreme Court has consistently said that a school must not endorse religion or any particular sect of a religion. The trick is in the interpretation of this edict. Often times, as in the Good News case, schools have gone too far, failing the Lemon Test's second prong.

Another major issue that the Court has grappled with in recent years is that of prayer broadcast over the public address system of a school during extra-curricular activities, such as football games or graduation ceremonies. The latter issue was addressed in 1992 by the Supreme Court, in Lee v Weisman (505 US 577).

The Court noted that while the prayers offered were non-sectarian in nature, in that they referred to and thanked God without reference to uniquely Jewish or Christian belief, the prayer was still primarily religious in nature: The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause.

It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." The State's involvement in the school prayers challenged today violates these central principles.

The Court also looked at the effect of the prayer on students. It noted that discourse on issue like prayer in school, is positive, as is tolerating speech you disagree with. But the school environment, religious speech carries with it a "risk of indirect coercion."

The District Court allowed the prayer only if it was non-sectarian, but the Circuit Court ruled both the old and new schemes to be unconstitutional. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed. Both sides of the issue referred to the previous Lee case. The school district argued that since the prayer was being led by a student, and not by a member of the clergy invited to the school by an administrator.

The Court said that it agreed that private-lead speech was much less restricted than public-sponsored speech, but it disagreed that the student's speech was private. These invocations are authorized by a government policy and take place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events...

Despite all of the above, the school district had a trump card in its attempt to continue to allow prayer at the games: attendance at the football games is not compulsory. The Court was unconvinced — they noted that some students were compelled to attend games, such as cheerleaders, band members, and members of the team itself. The Court also raised the issue of peer pressure as making attendance less than completely voluntary. Leaving all of that aside, the Court still felt the policy violated precedent: "Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship."

Originally posted by jinx880101

One God Father of all Creator and source of life for all.

It does not specify- Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Mohamed.....etc, etc.

Please!

Actually, it does.

Right here:

We believe in One God Father of all Creator and source of life for all.

To say You are one is to hint at your perfection. To call you a trinity of persons is to bless you in your oneness of relationship. Yours is continual communication and relating.

The "trinity" in combination with a "God Father of all, Creator" is a uniquely christian concept among modern religions. The trinity in particular is a sideways reference to Jesus - the 'Father' of the trinity has already been mentioned in the prayer.

It absolutely excludes Allah, by making the trinity remark. Fundamentalist muslims will and have killed over the notion of a trinity.

"Those who believe that Allah has a son must be admonished since this is a monstrous blasphemy and falsehood" (18:4-6).

"Allah has never begotten a son and there are no deities beside him" (23:91).

"Jews say that Ezra is the son of Allah while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of Allah. May Allah destroy them. They are both perverted. They worship rabbis, monks and the Messiah, the son of Mary, as Lords besides Allah in opposition to the monotheistic command given them: (9:30, 31).



[edit on 2010/5/29 by nenothtu]

reply to post by jinx880101


You are my EFING Hero!!!

If that doesn't put an end to this thread, then I don't know what will!

This is exactly why the principal couldn't pray his prayer over the speaker and should be fired for choosing to preach in stead of pray!

Reading this makes me more proud of my government than I've ever been. It gives me confidence that our government is striving for an unbiased state. Thank God....no pun intended!

reply to post by Reflection



Not that you will even bother to read the actual court cases cited, here is Lee v. Weisman of which I am currently reading:

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

And the mish mash of various quotes provided by that other poster does not even bother to cite the court case that claims that football games are state coercive events. So go ahead and worship the other willful ignoramus who clearly didn't bother to read the case law she did cite and merely relied upon some summation written by somebody else. Her mish mash of non sequitor quotes that avoid citing case law where bold claims are made is far from ending this, and of course, only those who have no interest in being ignorant will bother to actually read the case law that was cited.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

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?

All of your examples lead to someone being injured or killed.

Once again, apples and oranges.

Might I ask how any of these lead to someone being injured or killed any more than religious speech does?

Reporting a false crime to 911 leads to someone being injured or killed how?
Making a death thread leads to someone being injured or killed how?
Shouting fire in a crowded theater leads to someone being injured or killed how?

At least in the last one, there is real potentiential but no certainty. Is it not religious speech that lead to things like Jonestown? If you would not mind explaining how you come to the conclusion you did, I would be ever so grateful. Thank you.

reply to post by Afterall


Reporting a false crime to 911 is fraudulent, which is crime that offers a clear victim. Fraud is not a right.

Making a death threat is assault and offers a clear victim. Assault is not a right.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater, which by the way has become the lazy man's reference of a Supreme Court ruling, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theater as tantamount to inciting a riot. Inciting riots are not a right, and indeed a crime that present clear victims.

As to your insinuation that religious speech is what led to the tragedy of Jonestown, I would suggest that it was insanity that led to that tragedy, and while insanity can certainly be found in religions, the two are not inherently bound to each other.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Afterall

 

Reporting a false crime to 911 is fraudulent, which is crime that offers a clear victim. Fraud is not a right.

Who would be injured or killed as was claimed?

Making a death threat is assault and offers a clear victim. Assault is not a right.

Who would be injured or killed as was claimed?

Shouting fire in a crowded theater, which by the way has become the lazy man's reference of a Supreme Court ruling,

Odd you would call it lazy when it is my third example.

where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theater as tantamount to inciting a riot. Inciting riots are not a right, and indeed a crime that present clear victims.

Right but it is simply the potential for a riot and not a riot so again, who is INJURED OR KILLED by potential for a riot?

As to your insinuation that religious speech is what led to the tragedy of Jonestown, I would suggest that it was insanity that led to that tragedy, and while insanity can certainly be found in religions, the two are not inherently bound to each other.

I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to play the same games with me you have been demonstrating so far. I asked a question. You took the time to respond. You did not actually answer the question that I asked. I would thank you to not respond at all if that is going to be the case.

Second of all, you can guess it was insanity all you want. Could you please explain to me your credentials to diagnose mental illness on any scale?

Originally posted by Afterall

I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to play the same games with me you have been demonstrating so far. I asked a question. You took the time to respond. You did not actually answer the question that I asked. I would thank you to not respond at all if that is going to be the case.

He pretty clearly stated who was victimized by those crimes, not exhaustively, of course, but at the most basic level, those who are ALWAYS injured by such crimes - the victims. Not necessarily the potential victims you were reaching for, but victims all the same.

You do understand that victims have received an injury, right?

Originally posted by nenothtu
He pretty clearly stated who was victimized by those crimes,

No he did not. List the victims he stated for us? Specifically the ones answering the question I asked.

not exhaustively, of course, but at the most basic level, those who are ALWAYS injured by such crimes - the victims. Not necessarily the potential victims you were reaching for, but victims all the same.

You do understand that victims have received an injury, right?

Who was injured then? Please explain.