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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
Why is that a problem, but my right to free speech is not a problem? Come on, say it with me.... Hypocrite.
Originally posted by sirnex
There is no need to drag taxation into a thread about an employee crying about his employers policy.
One of those requirements is that it adhere to constitutional restrictions placed on government.
No. His free speech is being infringed upon by the government. The case that this is also his employer is incidental, and subsidiary.
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!
You pray for safety and sportsmanship, and give thanks for a whole bunch of stuff.
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).
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?
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.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What makes you better than the good people of Tennessee?
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?
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.
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.
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....
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?
Originally posted by teapot
As I understand it, your 1st Amendment also declares that government does not belong in religion?
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]
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.