ACLU demands Sheriff stop sharing bible verses his response won't make them happy

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, but again, this is not an example of people expressing themselves as individuals. This is the sheriff's department account, a government account. Every officer has the right to express their religious belief as an individual, but this can be seen as an expression of the government's belief.

There is a big difference between Officer Smith posting Bible verses on his personal Facebook account and that same officer posting on the Mounds Police Department account.

This is where we disagree, though case law is on your side, I admit.

The sheriff expressing his opinion in uniform at the office is what the First Amendment was trying t protect,and posting on the official FB page should be seen as no different.

The First Amendment was trying to prevent the establishment of a formal relationship between the church and state such as existed with the UK government and the Anglican church. The FF knew that meant that every other denomination would be oppressed and discriminated against were that to happen, so they disallowed it. But only with the federal government, they did not ban it for the states and several states had such formal relationships with churches.

So the ban on the establishment of a formal tie with a denomination has again been stood on its head and used to deny the religious expression within the government that it was intended to protect.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, but again, this is not an example of people expressing themselves as individuals. This is the sheriff's department account, a government account. Every officer has the right to express their religious belief as an individual, but this can be seen as an expression of the government's belief.

There is a big difference between Officer Smith posting Bible verses on his personal Facebook account and that same officer posting on the Mounds Police Department account.

This is where we disagree, though case law is on your side, I admit.

The sheriff expressing his opinion in uniform at the office is what the First Amendment was trying t protect,and posting on the official FB page should be seen as no different.

The First Amendment was trying to prevent the establishment of a formal relationship between the church and state such as existed with the UK government and the Anglican church. The FF knew that meant that every other denomination would be oppressed and discriminated against were that to happen, so they disallowed it. But only with the federal government, they did not ban it for the states and several states had such formal relationships with churches.

So the ban on the establishment of a formal tie with a denomination has again been stood on its head and used to deny the religious expression within the government that it was intended to protect.

At least part of the problem with this argument is that, unless officers specifically type out that they are making an individual post, there is no way for people reading the Police Dept's Facebook to know who is putting up the scripture quotes. There is a picture in the OP article showing a post from the Mounds Police Department which simply quotes Biblical scripture. That is not just an individual expressing their religious beliefs. That could be one officer, or the entire department could have gotten behind posting that scripture, there is no way to know. Because of that, it isn't just one person expressing their religious beliefs, it is the Mounds Police Department, a government organization, expressing its religious beliefs.

If the sheriff prefaces his scriptures by indicating they come from him as an individual, your argument might make sense, but if it's just scripture being posted by the Mounds Police Department account, it is very different than "the sheriff expressing his opinion in uniform at the office."

Well, it's different from that anyway; a sheriff in the office is not speaking to people publicly as with social media. But it wouldn't be AS different.

 

[danielpalos]

A prominent civil rights group is demanding that an Oklahoma police department immediately stop sharing Bible verses on social media, but officials don’t seem interested in backing down.

ACLU Demands Sheriff Stop Sharing Bible Verses — His Response Won’t Make Them Happy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ACLU are nothing more than an ANTI AMERICAN hate group, they do not and have not protected the rights of American who have faith other than being a gawd dam fkn Muslim. Anything else they help strip it away with a few occasional make themselves look good cases that just might get lucky enough to have their support.

The ACLU should, "fight fire with fire",

Proverbs 6:16-19, is a "moral police" responsibility.

 

[JimBowie1958]

At least part of the problem with this argument is that, unless officers specifically type out that they are making an individual post, there is no way for people reading the Police Dept's Facebook to know who is putting up the scripture quotes. There is a picture in the OP article showing a post from the Mounds Police Department which simply quotes Biblical scripture. That is not just an individual expressing their religious beliefs. That could be one officer, or the entire department could have gotten behind posting that scripture, there is no way to know. Because of that, it isn't just one person expressing their religious beliefs, it is the Mounds Police Department, a government organization, expressing its religious beliefs.

If the sheriff prefaces his scriptures by indicating they come from him as an individual, your argument might make sense, but if it's just scripture being posted by the Mounds Police Department account, it is very different than "the sheriff expressing his opinion in uniform at the office."

Good point, but I think the context of the last 70 years of court decisions would dissuade any thinking person of that.

But no attribution at all does complicate things and could give the appearance of an endorsement of religion.

Well, it's different from that anyway; a sheriff in the office is not speaking to people publicly as with social media. But it wouldn't be AS different.

Hey, dont get sassy with me boy, you and your smilies.

I am an unemployed old fart who has nothing better to do all day than to sit here and retort with a thousand smiles if I want to.

You have been warned.

 

[danielpalos]

Genesis 1:29-31New International Version (NIV)
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Only infidels, protestants. and renegades to a holy Bible, gainsay that which is declared not merely Good, but very Good, as it pertains to the plant called cannabis.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Only infidels, protestants. and renegades to a holy Bible, gainsay that which is declared not merely Good, but very Good, as it pertains to the plant called cannabis.

Far out, throw me a frisbee.
Just wait, next year it will already be 1968!
For you.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the right wing going to, "get moral" to Genesis 1:29-31?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

When is the right wing going to, "get moral" to Genesis 1:29-31?

Ask yourself, right winger.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the right wing going to, "get moral" to Genesis 1:29-31?

Ask yourself, right winger.

I am on the left wing.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

When is the right wing going to, "get moral" to Genesis 1:29-31?

Ask yourself, right winger.

I am on the left wing.

No, you just think you are. You're a literal neocon, stuck in the 1960's.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the right wing going to, "get moral" to Genesis 1:29-31?

Ask yourself, right winger.

I am on the left wing.

No, you just think you are. You're a literal neocon, stuck in the 1960's.

End the drug war, right wingers.