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: 43
113
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


There is nothing at all exaggerated about income taxation in perpetuity being tyrannical, and further, when the perpetual income taxation is used to fund institutions that in turn become the basis by which every person who pays income taxes believes they have some sort of entitlement to dictate how the tax funded institution operates, this is certainly tyrannical, and not an exaggeration by any stretch of the imagination. Not to mention the fact that the federal government is in effect insisting that they have the right to declare "God Bless America" when ever they choose, or to pray openly and without shame in a federal building, but that the public does not have this right in government funded institutions, is most certainly tyrannical, and whimsical, arbitrary tyranny.

As to you insistence, ad nauseum, that the past 40 pages have been "bs", where people you disagree with are using this thread to espouse their personal opinions, this is precisely what you have been doing. Further, I entered this thread, and began posting precisely because there were other posters insisting this principal had no right to say what he said. This is why I entered the thread, and the only bs that has been going on in this thread, is from those that have attempted to make this a religious debate, rather than what it is about, a persons right to stand freely and speak their opinions without government interference.




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


So basically we're still left with a simple case of an employee bitching about his employers work policy in the same light as you not allowing me to insult customers. Great, so it's agreed, nothing wrong is going on here and the last 42 pages were just BS bitching about government using this insignificant garbage as a soapbox which has nothing to do with this simple case of no wrong doing.


No. Oversimplifying a 'problem' so that you can try to shove it under the rug does not solve it. Yeah, if we ignore the 'religion' aspects, the 'free speech' issues, and the governmental misconduct vis-a-vis constitutional issues, then you got it, that's what it was all about. If we ignore those things, there really aren't any issues here. Nothing to see here, move along...

If YOU want it to be about the above, then let's just SAY it is, so you can 'win', pat yourself on the back, and move on.

Win-win, everybody wins.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



No. Oversimplifying a 'problem' so that you can try to shove it under the rug does not solve it. Yeah, if we ignore the 'religion' aspects, the 'free speech' issues, and the governmental misconduct vis-a-vis constitutional issues, then you got it, that's what it was all about. If we ignore those things, there really aren't any issues here. Nothing to see here, move along...


OK, so it's a problem for an employer to make policy that infringes on what one can say whilst on the job. In that case, I should be able to take my employer to court for firing me for making policy that infringes on my right to free speech, no matter how someone may take offense to it.

This is basically your argument, correct?

The principals free speech is being infringed upon because his employer says he can't call for a religious ritual of invoking a deity to look favorably upon the home team.

Why is that a problem, but my right to free speech is not a problem? Come on, say it with me.... Hypocrite.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



There is nothing at all exaggerated about income taxation in perpetuity being tyrannical, and further, when the perpetual income taxation is used to fund institutions that in turn become the basis by which every person who pays income taxes believes they have some sort of entitlement to dictate how the tax funded institution operates, this is certainly tyrannical, and not an exaggeration by any stretch of the imagination. Not to mention the fact that the federal government is in effect insisting that they have the right to declare "God Bless America" when ever they choose, or to pray openly and without shame in a federal building, but that the public does not have this right in government funded institutions, is most certainly tyrannical, and whimsical, arbitrary tyranny.


OK, I did agree with income taxation as being tyrannical, but it is still a moot and meaningless argument to the topic of this thread. There is no need to drag taxation into a thread about an employee crying about his employers policy.

Christ, why don't we talk about tomorrows weather while we're on the topic of non applicable discussions.


As to you insistence, ad nauseum, that the past 40 pages have been "bs", where people you disagree with are using this thread to espouse their personal opinions, this is precisely what you have been doing. Further, I entered this thread, and began posting precisely because there were other posters insisting this principal had no right to say what he said. This is why I entered the thread, and the only bs that has been going on in this thread, is from those that have attempted to make this a religious debate, rather than what it is about, a persons right to stand freely and speak their opinions without government interference.


Err, not quite to the extent you and others have been. The most I've done is state that religion does not belong in government, which is a valid point and our government is secular. You and others have used this to bitch about how you think the government is tyrannical in nature whilst attempting to erroneously use an employee bitching about his employers policy as a means to bitch.

Point of fact, nothing tyrannical or wrong has occurred here. If you want to bring up income tax again, then I'll reciprocate and bring up tomorrows weather.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

OK, so it's a problem for an employer to make policy that infringes on what one can say whilst on the job. In that case, I should be able to take my employer to court for firing me for making policy that infringes on my right to free speech, no matter how someone may take offense to it.

This is basically your argument, correct?


No. You seem to be confusing 'government' with 'employer'. As an 'employer', the government is a special case, having placed itself in a position where it regulates itself, and so must fulfill requirements for both employer AND governmental entity. One of those requirements is that it adhere to constitutional restrictions placed on government.

Private employers are not bound by restrictions placed on government, as they are not government bodies.

You are trying to make the case now that the status as government doesn't matter, all that matters is the status as 'employer'.



The principals free speech is being infringed upon because his employer says he can't call for a religious ritual of invoking a deity to look favorably upon the home team.


No. His free speech is being infringed upon by the government. The case that this is also his employer is incidental, and subsidiary.



Why is that a problem, but my right to free speech is not a problem? Come on, say it with me.... Hypocrite.


Precisely! Why is YOUR right to free speech NOT a problem, but this other individuals right to free speech IS a problem?

I will without doubt say it with you. Let's say it loud now... HYPOCRITE!



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

The principals free speech is being infringed upon because his employer says he can't call for a religious ritual of invoking a deity to look favorably upon the home team.


This isnt what happened in the OP. Did you erect a strawman, just outright lie, or change the topic? Just so i know what the heck you are talking about.

My observation is that you never pray to win a game. You pray for safety and sportsmanship, and give thanks for a whole bunch of stuff.



Why is that a problem, but my right to free speech is not a problem? Come on, say it with me.... Hypocrite.


Its not. If they choose to fire him from announcing games, I would not complain at all. It is a "for profit" venture, and the people running the show have every right to exclude him from future events if they feel that he is violating their policies.

But he should not be constitutionally prohibited from doing so, and in fact is not constitutionally prohibited from doing so until you count in the SCOTUS making up "case law" (a non-constitutional term).



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
There is no need to drag taxation into a thread about an employee crying about his employers policy.


That isn't what he did. He complained about a law that restricted what his employer (the event organizer) was allowed to let him do.

And didn't you just say he was praying for the home team to win? Which is it? Only one is the truth...which one?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



One of those requirements is that it adhere to constitutional restrictions placed on government.


Great, so it's agreed! The government as the employer has policy in place where it shall not establish religion. The employee did not like the policy, and is not bitching about it.


No. His free speech is being infringed upon by the government. The case that this is also his employer is incidental, and subsidiary.


OK great, so I can take you to court if you infringe on my freedom of speech.


Precisely! Why is YOUR right to free speech NOT a problem, but this other individuals right to free speech IS a problem?

I will without doubt say it with you. Let's say it loud now... HYPOCRITE!


Are you bleeping kidding me? Seriously?

Your argument is to invoke free speech and how one employer can't infringe upon that but YOU can. Now I have to move beyond hypocrite and call you a bigot as well.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



You pray for safety and sportsmanship, and give thanks for a whole bunch of stuff.


Uh, OK... so pray for the deity to look favorably upon the home team? But my way of saying it is wrong because you said the same thing differently? I get that you don't care for my opinion, but god damn....


But he should not be constitutionally prohibited from doing so, and in fact is not constitutionally prohibited from doing so until you count in the SCOTUS making up "case law" (a non-constitutional term).


He is NOT being prohibited from ANNOUNCING THE GAME. Great, problem solved again!

Is there any other way you two can hypocritically bitch about how his right to free speech is guaranteed and mine isn't if I went to work for you two bigots?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



That isn't what he did. He complained about a law that restricted what his employer (the event organizer) was allowed to let him do.


Uhm, he brought up income tax which is an unrelated case that has nothing to do with the principle being unable to do his job properly.


And didn't you just say he was praying for the home team to win? Which is it? Only one is the truth...which one?


Whoa, where did I specifically say win? I said look favorably upon. Take it how you want it, chances are as is evident that you'll make it out to be something it's not, such as this case of where there is nothing wrong going on.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 


Amen to men like that. It takes alot to stand up against the majority and even unjust law



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Err, not quite to the extent you and others have been. The most I've done is state that religion does not belong in government, which is a valid point and our government is secular. You and others have used this to bitch about how you think the government is tyrannical in nature whilst attempting to erroneously use an employee bitching about his employers policy as a means to bitch.


You keep yammering on about how you think religion doesn't belong in government but all you do is point to this principal who virtually no one in this thread refers to by name. He is a nameless faceless person who stood up before a football game and complained about several policies, not just the restrictions on prayer he felt were misguided. In the meantime you virtually ignore the fact that The House of Representatives pray right there in the chamber before each and every session, and you don't seem to have a problem at all with the fact that numerous Presidents will declare God Bless America when ever they please. You pretend all this is not religious, and you have decried all the defense of this principal to say what he wanted about the issue, attempting to frame it as if it were no different than employees in a private business.

When it is convenient for you, you will admit that the principal did nothing wrong and his rights were in no way violated, and then when you believe this is forgotten, right back to the whole nonsense about employees in private business can't say what they want why can a principal. You clearly want this principal fired for his actions, but who are you to make this call? What makes you better than the good people of Tennessee?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What makes you better than the good people of Tennessee?


Not to speak for other people, but I suspect he's "better" in the sense that he understands religion is a private matter and that football games are not for activities usually reserved for churches.

He may also be "better" in the sense that he most likely doesn't believe, as the principal does, that teaching about condom use is "condoning promiscuous sex", and other hilarious interpretations of the educational system. But whatever, the freedom of speech allows us to express our backwards, ridiculous philosophies also.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



You keep yammering on about how you think religion doesn't belong in government but all you do is point to this principal who virtually no one in this thread refers to by name. He is a nameless faceless person who stood up before a football game and complained about several policies, not just the restrictions on prayer he felt were misguided. In the meantime you virtually ignore the fact that The House of Representatives pray right there in the chamber before each and every session, and you don't seem to have a problem at all with the fact that numerous Presidents will declare God Bless America when ever they please. You pretend all this is not religious, and you have decried all the defense of this principal to say what he wanted about the issue, attempting to frame it as if it were no different than employees in a private business.


Uhm, I was pretty certain that my stance of religion does not belong in government covered all that. Sorry if I failed to go off on a tangent and bring up specifics that are non applicable to the topic of the thread, you know.... like income taxes.

Was not aware that it was also a requirement to bring up every non applicable topic about government and religion in a simple discussion of an employee bitching about his employer.

Did you know it's going to be 75 and cloudy where I live today? I'm personally dreading the rain tomorrow, can't stand rain for some reason.


When it is convenient for you, you will admit that the principal did nothing wrong


I never admitted that. I admitted that it's not illegal for him to bitch about work policy. I do think it was wrong of him to invoke deities in ritualistic prayer whilst on the job paid by the government, which I am of the understanding that the government is supposed to be secular. So no wrong doing has occurred when it was ruled that he can't invoke his deity in ritualistic prayer.


and his rights were in no way violated


Right, he's still allowed to yammer on about his deity all he wants when not on the job. Just like I can yammer on about how some customer was a complete moron and deserved a good swift beating, when I'm NOT ON THE JOB. His JOB is NOT to invoke deities in ritualistic prayer.


and then when you believe this is forgotten, right back to the whole nonsense about employees in private business can't say what they want why can a principal. You clearly want this principal fired for his actions, but who are you to make this call? What makes you better than the good people of Tennessee?


I think your an idiot for trying to ascertain what I want to happen to this principal. I could personally care less whether he get's fired or not. Most I've mentioned as to any aspect of his employment is that he can quit and go work at a Christian private school where JOB policy would allow him to invoke deity in ritualistic prayer. I appreciate you trying to decide for me what I want to happen to this principal, but your personal description of what you THINK I WANT does not invalidate that this is still a simple case of an employee bitching about work policy.

He can ANNOUNCE the game. Announcing the GAME does not REQUIRE invoking deities in ritualistic prayer. THAT IS NOT HIS JOB. Where is the problem?

[edit on 31-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The most I've done is state that religion does not belong in government, which is a valid point and our government is secular.


As I understand it, your 1st Amendment also declares that government does not belong in religion?

The sharing of a prayer, at the start of a sporting contest, in a government chamber, in a classroom even, is a long held tradition that in no way infringes upon the liberty of the individual who does not agree with that tradition.

The principle was right to raise awareness of the invasive nature of state case law being used as a vehicle to undermine your Constitution.

The relationship between freedom of speech in state sponsored institutes and taxation is clear to me. In a secular democratic republic, the 'state' only exists to service the stakeholder. Through the democratic process, the stakeholder dictates how the tax unit is spent and in the case of the school football team in Tennessee, the majority who chose to uphold their traditions were exercising their rights as taxpaying stakeholders to demonstrate the principle of local democracy.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 



The principle was right to raise awareness of the invasive nature of state case law being used as a vehicle to undermine your Constitution.


No undermining of the constitution has occurred here. It's a simple case of an employee bitching about work policy.


The relationship between freedom of speech in state sponsored institutes and taxation is clear to me. In a secular democratic republic, the 'state' only exists to service the stakeholder. Through the democratic process, the stakeholder dictates how the tax unit is spent and in the case of the school football team in Tennessee, the majority who chose to uphold their traditions were exercising their rights as taxpaying stakeholders to demonstrate the principle of local democracy.


Great, so it's acceptable that we can call our employers tyrants for making policies that dictate what we can and can't say on the job, such as insulting a customer. If that be the case, then I'm all for it and on board with the idea of taking an employer to court for infringing upon our right to free speech.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



You pray for safety and sportsmanship, and give thanks for a whole bunch of stuff.


Uh, OK... so pray for the deity to look favorably upon the home team? But my way of saying it is wrong because you said the same thing differently? I get that you don't care for my opinion, but god damn....


Yet you leave out the visiting team...on purpose. Mischaracterization. If what youhave to say is worthy of saying, you won't have to lie and tell half truths to make others believe it. This tells me a lot either about your viewpoints, or your ability to defend your viewpoints.




He is NOT being prohibited from ANNOUNCING THE GAME. Great, problem solved again!


What he does while announcing the game should be left up to the event coordinator, not the SCOTUS. They don't even know any of the players, and likely have never visited the tax district that generates revenue to support the school that the team represents.

Mischaracterizations and half truths are only needed to prop up arguments entrenched in fallacy.




Is there any other way you two can hypocritically bitch about how his right to free speech is guaranteed and mine isn't if I went to work for you two bigots?


I will say this one more time. Please, read carefully so that you don't ask it again:

They can fire him from announcing the game if they so choose, pending state law. In Texas, it is a "right to work" state, meaning i can terminate you for cause at any time.

If his employer for that particular "job", the event organizer, can "fire" him by asking him to not volunteer anymore. That is their decision. not yours, not the Courts.

You use the term"the government" as if it was a single department, small time operation. You are, once again, mischaracterizing facts to bolster a weak argument.





[edit on 31-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by teapot


As I understand it, your 1st Amendment also declares that government does not belong in religion?




Then your understanding of clearly written words fares no better than the educated idiots of our historical SCOTUS in 1962. The first amendments statement on religion is that "Congress shall make no laws". It says nothing about governmen, especially on the state level, supporting religion. Only that congress shall make no law.

I would say that from there, it is up to the people who live in that voting district how things get run. If a bunch of holy rollers want to move to Rhode Island and teach bible study for 6th period, they should be able to do this by voting for change in state law, and then directing district policy to achieve what they want on a local level.

This is what "representative democracy" is all about.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What makes you better than the good people of Tennessee?


Not to speak for other people, but I suspect he's "better" in the sense that he understands religion is a private matter and that football games are not for activities usually reserved for churches.

He may also be "better" in the sense that he most likely doesn't believe, as the principal does, that teaching about condom use is "condoning promiscuous sex", and other hilarious interpretations of the educational system. But whatever, the freedom of speech allows us to express our backwards, ridiculous philosophies also.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]


I gave you a star for this. I don't agree with everything you typed...but the fact that you are willing to allow people to express backwards, ridiculous philosophies is commendable. They are meaningless to me, too....but they matter to the people who take them seriously.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by teapot
 



The principle was right to raise awareness of the invasive nature of state case law being used as a vehicle to undermine your Constitution.


No undermining of the constitution has occurred here. It's a simple case of an employee bitching about work policy.


"Simple case"?

Outright lies do not make for a better argument. 40 some odd pages down the road would indicate that nothing in this case is simple.
Especially the lines of accountability within his supervisory structure. His employer, "the government" has many heads. Lumping him in with "government" does not differentiate if he is Congress, CIA, or a meter reader for the local Muny Water Dept.

I would say his "employer" is the district. The school district that pays his check. Not SCOTUS, not Congress.



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join