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

reply to post by Anti-Evil


If you wasn't a law abiding citizen you wouldn't be on ATS right now

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.

Thank you, sir. Believe it or not I struggle with this issue as a libertarian because at the very essence of laws dealing with separation of church and state, it means that in cases such as this truly free speech must be quashed. On the other hand, such laws protect the rights of the minority so this is a difficult call for me.

I find it less alarming that he found a way to incite prayer here than his comments about the educational requirements being interpreted in religious ways, i.e., condom use instruction equalling condoning promiscuous sex, etc. Denouncing potentially life-saving information because it offends your religious sensibilities can create sociological problems that religion cannot save you from.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer




I see him as a religious zealot, not a principle. His words are obviously not condoned by the district. They are his words. He spoke them, he owns them.

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.

I try really hard to not associate with groups, unless it brings professional opportunities and is not too contrary to my own beliefs. This is why i joined Rotary. Their 4 way test fits my viewpoints nicely. and its an efficient way to do charitable work.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

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.

Hive fives to you, brother. I feel very much the same way, including referring to myself as a Constitutionalist from time to time (mostly because of the absolutism of the Libertarian Party). And again, this issue sits on slippery ground as far as how I choose to interpret it. I think the 40+ pages on the issue points to its inherent ambiguous nature. As I'm sure you've gleaned from my prior posts I am biased against zealotry so that may be unfairly coloring my libertarian perspective. Either way, this is an intriguing discussion.

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.

Negative, young sir. I 'agreed' to no such thing, and putting words into my mouth 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.

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.

Yes, you can. Anyone can sue anyone about anything. Winning is a different matter entirely. Since I am not a congressman, or indeed ANY sort of government lawmaker, you won't win on the same basis as I am defending this principal. I venture to say you wouldn't win at all. I invite you to have a go at it, though. Two valuable things will come out of it: 1) You will gain valuable knowledge in the operation of the legal system, which you are sorely lacking. You will at the very least get educated in the futility of frivilous arguments. 2) I could use the money I will without doubt gain as a punitive settlement for your institution of a frivilous lawsuit.

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?

Bleeping? Emotional much? I'm kidding you to precisely the same extent you are kidding me. That seems fair. 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.

My argument is nothing of the sort. I've explained my position clearly, and you have failed to grasp it. Whether that is intentional or through lack of ability, only you can say. Either way, you can get back to your regularly scheduled argument. I don't argue with folks who are simply unable to argue, and who must rely on hyperbole, feigning ignorance, and who give all appearances of not being able to carry their end of the discussion. To do so just wouldn't be sporting of me.

My argument stands. Government is constitutionally barred from punishing an individual for their religion, private persons are not so named in the constitution as being barred. In fact to do so would be an even further restriction on that individual's freedom of association.

Call me any names you want. Doesn't bother me in the slightest, doesn't change what's true in the slightest. As I've said on this board repeatedly, merely changing the label has no effect at all on the contents. It DOES, however, betray the weakness of your argument, and indicates your awareness of that fact. It is, in fact, evidence of your desperation.

Please, continue. I'll not step in and rattle your reality again unless I catch you actually making a comment worth arguing against.

Like THAT'S gonna happen!

Edit: pesky spelling errors. No, I probably didn't get them all.

[edit on 2010/5/31 by nenothtu]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

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.

Irrelevant drivel, really.

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.

The supreme court handles public schooling, this is what I've been told in this thread. The football game is a public school event. Uhm... I still fail to see the problem here. The football game is not some private funded and operated endeavor. Again, irrelevant drivel.

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.

Great, so no problems then.

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.

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?

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.

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 first amendments statement on religion is that "Congress shall make no laws"

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.

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.

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.

40 some odd pages down the road would indicate that nothing in this case is simple.

Aye, the last 40 some odd pages have been riddled with irrelevant bitching about how people think the government is tyrannical and scary and mean and taking away all our rights whilst using this simple case of an employee bitching about his employers work policy as a soap box.

reply to post by nenothtu

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.

So you disagree with an employer making policy that infringes on ones free speech?

you won't win on the same basis as I am defending this principal

Oh, you mean your hypocritical argument because you don't like the government and think it's tyrannical?

Bleeping? Emotional much?

Nonsensical drivel doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite.

I've explained my position clearly

Right, 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.

Government is constitutionally barred from punishing an individual for their religion

He was not punished, was he?

It is, in fact, evidence of your desperation.

The only act of desperation I see is your attempt to use this example of no wrong doing as your personal soap box to bitch about how you think the government is tyrannical. We get it, you don't like the government, that opinion of yours does not detract from the fact that this thread is about an employee bitching about work policy.

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?

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?

Either you are playing stupid to be facetious, which makes you once again ignorable. Or you are really stupid, which i cannot fix. If you are playing, please don't. You are only embarassing yourself.

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.

I was quoting only the relevant part: CONGRESS shall make no law...."

Congress is not a principle, an athletic department, nor a school board. The states can do whatever they want...but CONGRESS shall not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

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?

Which is one aspect of the public school system which is handled by the Supreme court, so I've been told in this thread. Again, I don't see the problem here.

Congress is not a principle, an athletic department, nor a school board. The states can do whatever they want...but CONGRESS shall not.

Nothing wrong has occurred, so I'm unsure why your still bitching about this. The supreme court, not congress, interpreted and made a ruling based on preexisting law which is within it's full right to do so.

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?

Irrelevant.

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.

Equal treatment is applied by disallowing treatment thus negating having to allow ALL form of religion making every "announcement" last for hours on end.

The principal could have said "Moment of silence".

If i pay into a system, I should not be discouraged from using it.

If you feel discouraged from using it, then the discouragement is born from your own frivolous opinions and not from any actual perceived attempt of discouragement made by the system.

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.

You attack my character and bitch about civility? Piss off.





[edit on 31-5-2010 by sirnex]

[edit on 31-5-2010 by sirnex]

Hey peeps, on both sides of the debate we should put down all the different arguments for and against this debate.

I see BOTH sides of the argument BUT I always fall on the side of freedom. If it is to limit someone's freedom it shall not be infringed.

What say all the peeps, put a list together of all the differing arguments for and against and let us address each.

What say you?

reply to post by endisnighe

I always fall on the side of freedom. If it is to limit someone's freedom it shall not be infringed.

Thing is, no freedom is being infringed upon here. They are simply using this case as a soap box to air their grievances they have against government and how they think it's this tyrannical system out to take away their freedoms.

The true underlying issue here is that the principal, being an employee of a government operated school system does not like his employers work policy.

Personally, I've not liked certain policies my employer has made either, but I don't call it tyranny.

It's not the *job* of the principal to call for prayer at a school function whilst on the job as per work policy states. Simple as that.

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.

reply to post by sirnex


You know what, it usually takes a HELL of a LOT to piss me off.

What you just did, pushed me over.

I am trying to set up a debatable system and you just go off.

Welcome to my foe list. I usually relegate that to people that want to talk about pedophilia, but you just entered a new arena, idiots!

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]

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!

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.

The supreme court which handles the public school system, or so I've been told in this thread, made an interpretation and a ruling based upon a preexisting law. Case closed. It's a simple case of an employee bitching about his employers work policy.

And then you lot using this as a soap box to bitch about how you think the government is tyrannical and stripping away our rights, using this employee bitching about work policy as an ill thought out example.

The primary job of public schools is education, not religion. Calling for a moment of silence would have been the proper thing to do.

reply to post by endisnighe


I'm confused. What is there to debate on the topic of the thread? No freedom was infringed upon in the case. Sorry that the lack of infringed freedoms pisses you off so much.

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]

Couldn't agree any more with you. At least they admit to being idiots and don't understand this simple concept.

reply to post by sirnex


The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the public school system. You have not closed any case here. All you are doing is using this thread to bitch about that principal and the posters in this thread who have defended that principals actions. You clearly have no understanding of what jurisdiction is, and the boundaries by which government officials must abide. Again, there is no evidence that the principal violated the terms of his contract, and if he did, it would not be up to the Supreme Court to handle this violation. Had you bothered to read Article III of the Constitution, you might know that.

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!

I'm not saying to stop talking, I'm just saying I don't know what a lot of this discussion has to do with the op and maybe someone should start a new thread. I understand that discussions like this will start to branch off, but it just seems like most supporters of the principal are not addressing the most basic bottom line that I referred to above. It seems like they like to go off in a lot of different directions but never seem to address the bottom line that this has nothing to do with free speech. Which I very much believe in, by the way. What you said about me wanting to deprive people of free speech is just another example of these BS assumptions that it's about free speech.