It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
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.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I would say that Libertarian is the closest description you can find for me. Maybe Constitutionalist. I am just far to loathe to be part of any group. I want my actions to be attributed to me, the individual, not a group. And I don't want to own the actions of the rest of that group.
Originally posted by sirnex
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.
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.
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.
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.
The first amendments statement on religion is that "Congress shall make no laws"
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.
40 some odd pages down the road would indicate that nothing in this case is simple.
Negative, young sir. I 'agreed' to no such thing, and putting words into my moth doesn't help your argument or credibility in the slightest. For the record, I disagree with every point you attempted to make in that silly little diatribe.
you won't win on the same basis as I am defending this principal
Bleeping? Emotional much?
I've explained my position clearly
Government is constitutionally barred from punishing an individual for their religion
It is, in fact, evidence of your desperation.
Originally posted by sirnex
The supreme court handles public schooling, or so I've been told in this thread. How is it not their decision? Who is this magical third party that makes the real decisions?
Talk about misrepresentation!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Yea, that's the full sentence. No law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. Again, no wrong doing has occurred here. No law was put forth that respects and establishment of religion.
They can, it's called private school. Don't pretend that they have no rights to do so nor any means to do so or that law prohibits them from doing so. If your going to pretend I'm misrepresenting here, then please don't be an idiotic hypocrite doing the same damn thing you accuse me of. Your brain is not an expensive paperweight, it's a valuable tool, so use it.
Irrelevant drivel attacking a term that generalizes various functions of the same organization. And you call a generalization a weak argument. Piss off if that's the best you got.
The magical third party is called "The School Board". I bet they would let you peek behind the curtain if you would show up to a public meeting. You voted for these people. Did you vote without even informing yourself of the roles of the positions you were voting for?
Congress is not a principle, an athletic department, nor a school board. The states can do whatever they want...but CONGRESS shall not.
But they already pay property taxes to support the public school. Do they get to opt out of property taxes, so that they can afford private schools?
Not likely. So your "solution" sucks. It does not give equal treatment to religions, as it still levies a tax on Christians who send their children to private, Christian schools.
If i pay into a system, I should not be discouraged from using it.
And now you will once again be ignored. If you wish to abide by the T and C of ATS, and participate in CIVIL discourse, we can re-establish contact.
I always fall on the side of freedom. If it is to limit someone's freedom it shall not be infringed.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by sirnex
Breathing is not in a job description either, but people do it. Going to the bathroom is not in a job description but people do it. Wearing underwear is not in a job description, but people do it. There is no evidence that principal violated the terms of his contract.
Originally posted by Reflection
OMG! Is this thread still going? It's like the freaking energizer bunny!
I'm only gonna say this one more time since I've said it about a hundred times already. All the people on here that support this principal seem to not be able to get over the fact that IT IS NOT ABOUT HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
The principal's first amendments are not violated because he can't say a prayer over the public address system before a game. If he would have prayed the prayer he would not have been criminally prosecuted. He would have just been fired from his job. The Constitution protects us from being criminally prosecuted for free speech. It does not protect us from being fired from our job for exercising free speech.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a prayer by a public school, like a prayer over the public address system or a prayer by a teacher to start class, is coercive and unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause. Private prayer is still allowed, because of the first amendment, for both teachers and students. It just isn't allowed as part of class or state sponsored event and one will be fired from their job for violating it. If anyone has a problem with this then take it up with the Supreme Court.
That's the bottom line. Shouldn't this thread be done. We can always start a new thread about the Supreme Court cases that set the precedent for this.
[edit on 31-5-2010 by Reflection]
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Reflection
Yes, we got your views earlier in the discussion.
Would you like to put all of your arguments into a purposeful diction?
I have been keeping up with this thread for the entire time, just because YOU feel that it is nothing, some of us idiots feel that just MAYBE that those that believe in a higher power, should be allowed to talk about it.
Now, since you believe that those who believe in a higher power should be deprived of their free speech, maybe should explain this theory instead of JUST DECLARING that you are right!