An Athiest Student as she has claimed, brings a lawsuit with the help of the ACLU?

[Woyzeck]

So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them of that something, thus giving them nothing in return, so she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).

Yes, she should feel horrible, she had a banner taken down! Not something trivial like a handicap accessible ramp or pizza for lunch on fridays, but a banner! The nerve of some people.

The banner is just a symbol in the case, in which is a case that involves a much larger & broader picture of what is going on in this nation now, so you can pull that crap if you want, but it doesn't fly here...

A broader picture of the constitution being upheld? Is that really such a bad thing?

 

[rightwinger]

So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them of that something, thus giving them nothing in return, so she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).

Yes, she should feel horrible, she had a banner taken down! Not something trivial like a handicap accessible ramp or pizza for lunch on fridays, but a banner! The nerve of some people.

The banner is just a symbol in the case, in which is a case that involves a much larger & broader picture of what is going on in this nation now, so you can pull that crap if you want, but it doesn't fly here...

It has flown for close to 50 years now, you are not allowed to post a prayer in a public school.
Prayer in public school is not allowed....nor should it be

They are free to post the Constitution if they wish to

 

[beagle9]

So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them of that something, thus giving them nothing in return, so she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).

Why? It was the school system’s failure to follow the law – whether they were ignorant of it or not. Why should she ‘feel horrible’ about obeying the Constitution?

There is a huge problem with the intepretation of the constitution these days, where as the devils have been studying that document in order to destroy us with it, just as they have been studying the Bible in hopes to derail us with a new interpretation of it as well, but for those who are strong, we can see past it all, and so we look upon all of this now in wonderment of... I really do feel sorry for our garndchildren these days, because as we see right now with our own children in this world, they are lost and getting more lost by the minute in this new world of thinking going on now. Strengthen that which ramains sayeth the Lord, for the time is drawing near.

 

[beagle9]

Yes, she should feel horrible, she had a banner taken down! Not something trivial like a handicap accessible ramp or pizza for lunch on fridays, but a banner! The nerve of some people.

The banner is just a symbol in the case, in which is a case that involves a much larger & broader picture of what is going on in this nation now, so you can pull that crap if you want, but it doesn't fly here...

A broader picture of the constitution being upheld? Is that really such a bad thing?

Broader, meaning your added interpretation of it?

 

[beagle9]

Yes, she should feel horrible, she had a banner taken down! Not something trivial like a handicap accessible ramp or pizza for lunch on fridays, but a banner! The nerve of some people.

The banner is just a symbol in the case, in which is a case that involves a much larger & broader picture of what is going on in this nation now, so you can pull that crap if you want, but it doesn't fly here...

It has flown for close to 50 years now, you are not allowed to post a prayer in a public school.
Prayer in public school is not allowed....nor should it be

They are free to post the Constitution if they wish to

Oh yea, but what about where it has endowed by our creator in it? wouldn't the ACLU go after that as well, because this girl is again offended ?

 

[rightwinger]

So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them of that something, thus giving them nothing in return, so she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).

Why? It was the school system’s failure to follow the law – whether they were ignorant of it or not. Why should she ‘feel horrible’ about obeying the Constitution?

There is a huge problem with the intepretation of the constitution these days, where as the devils have been studying that document in order to destroy us with it, just as they have been studying the Bible in hopes to derail us with a new interpretation of it as well, but for those who are strong, we can see past it all, and so we look upon all of this now in wonderment of... I really do feel sorry for our garndchildren these days, because as we see right now with our own children in this world, they are lost and getting more lost by the minute in this new world of thinking going on now. Strengthen that which ramains sayeth the Lord, for the time is drawing near.

Removing prayer from school was decided in 1963. It is nothing new. If you want your child to pray in school, send him to a Christian school

 

[Crackerjack]

Look beagle9, it's painfully obvious you're shooting from the hip here and that you don't understand that which you criticize. I'm going to do you a solid and help alleviate that problem. Please see the below website:

Introduction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

This is a website put up and maintained by a law professor that basically hits the high points of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Now, if you wish to continue to engage in empty platitudes and random accusations, that is your right, but you will probably only be met with same. However, if you would like to have a reasoned, intelligent conversation regarding what the Constitution says and how it has been interpreted thus far, you will have a much better conversation with the people on this site about this subject. Because, and I mean no offense, you're talking at a different level than certain of us here on this thread, and you really haven't done anything to advance your position to this point. Just saying "the judges were wrong" is a conclusion; supporting it with articulate, specific facts may get you somewhere.

Really, I'm not trying to insult or belittle you. I'm just trying to give you the tools you need to articulate your opinion on a subject for which you obviously have a passion.

 

[Woyzeck]

The banner is just a symbol in the case, in which is a case that involves a much larger & broader picture of what is going on in this nation now, so you can pull that crap if you want, but it doesn't fly here...

A broader picture of the constitution being upheld? Is that really such a bad thing?

Broader, meaning your added interpretation of it?

My added interpretation of it being a reality you don't like, but can't come up with an adequate reason or explanation of why the contrary should be true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a huge problem with the intepretation of the constitution these days…

In your opinion.

And 1962 is not ‘these days.’

 

[rightwinger]

The banner is just a symbol in the case, in which is a case that involves a much larger & broader picture of what is going on in this nation now, so you can pull that crap if you want, but it doesn't fly here...

It has flown for close to 50 years now, you are not allowed to post a prayer in a public school.
Prayer in public school is not allowed....nor should it be

They are free to post the Constitution if they wish to

Oh yea, but what about where it has endowed by our creator in it? wouldn't the ACLU go after that as well, because this girl is again offended ?

Endowed by your creator is in the Declaration of Independence

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Atheism is the Official State Sponsored Religious Belief of the Progressives

 

[hortysir]

Did this actually happen at your high school, Beagle?

 

[Againsheila]

She should have just kept her head down, and said she agreed with every else, right?

Not at all.. She has every right to comment on it and to have her own opinion. We do have freedom of speech here. She may have even gone to the student body and tried to bring it down by a vote of the students. Instead, she went to the ACLU and got her way forced on everybody, regardless.

So then why should it have not been taken down then?

Because it was given to the school by the graduating class of 1963 and she's the only one who didn't like it.

Lady Justice, btw is a religious icon for a dead religion. Supposing the graduating class of 1963 had given a statue of lady justice. Would I have the right by myself to go to court and have that statue removed simply because I don't believe in that dead religion?

Of course not. Christianity is not a dead religion, but what if it was? Would your opinion be the same?

 

[Againsheila]

Why? It was the school system’s failure to follow the law – whether they were ignorant of it or not. Why should she ‘feel horrible’ about obeying the Constitution?

There is a huge problem with the intepretation of the constitution these days, where as the devils have been studying that document in order to destroy us with it, just as they have been studying the Bible in hopes to derail us with a new interpretation of it as well, but for those who are strong, we can see past it all, and so we look upon all of this now in wonderment of... I really do feel sorry for our garndchildren these days, because as we see right now with our own children in this world, they are lost and getting more lost by the minute in this new world of thinking going on now. Strengthen that which ramains sayeth the Lord, for the time is drawing near.

Removing prayer from school was decided in 1963. It is nothing new. If you want your child to pray in school, send him to a Christian school

So why did this banner hang there for 49 years, given to the school, coincidentally, by the class of 1963.

 

[hortysir]

There is a huge problem with the intepretation of the constitution these days, where as the devils have been studying that document in order to destroy us with it, just as they have been studying the Bible in hopes to derail us with a new interpretation of it as well, but for those who are strong, we can see past it all, and so we look upon all of this now in wonderment of... I really do feel sorry for our garndchildren these days, because as we see right now with our own children in this world, they are lost and getting more lost by the minute in this new world of thinking going on now. Strengthen that which ramains sayeth the Lord, for the time is drawing near.

Removing prayer from school was decided in 1963. It is nothing new. If you want your child to pray in school, send him to a Christian school

So why did this banner hang there for 49 years, given to the school, coincidentally, by the class of 1963.

WADR, Sheila, just because a crime is continuously committed doesn't make it any less of a crime.

"But, officer, I've been driving on a suspended license for years and no one has ever pulled me over before"


I don't agree with the no prayer in school law any more than I do with helmet or seat belt laws, but they are still the law and I respect the law.

 

[beagle9]

Look beagle9, it's painfully obvious you're shooting from the hip here and that you don't understand that which you criticize. I'm going to do you a solid and help alleviate that problem. Please see the below website:

Introduction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

This is a website put up and maintained by a law professor that basically hits the high points of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Now, if you wish to continue to engage in empty platitudes and random accusations, that is your right, but you will probably only be met with same. However, if you would like to have a reasoned, intelligent conversation regarding what the Constitution says and how it has been interpreted thus far, you will have a much better conversation with the people on this site about this subject. Because, and I mean no offense, you're talking at a different level than certain of us here on this thread, and you really haven't done anything to advance your position to this point. Just saying "the judges were wrong" is a conclusion; supporting it with articulate, specific facts may get you somewhere.

Really, I'm not trying to insult or belittle you. I'm just trying to give you the tools you need to articulate your opinion on a subject for which you obviously have a passion.

As you know, it apears that there is this grave weakness found in the First Amendment between the two clauses, in which has been exploited and left in confusion by those who wish to confuse and destroy this nation (either with that weakness that is found between these two clashing clauses), or not destroy the nation with the clash being found. So I see that these clashing points are being found between the "Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause there of, where as this has left the door wide open for continued interpretation by whom ever, and at any given time I'm guessing, and so I'm guessing also that it may be found, that we are just letting the best mouth piece at any given time win, where as we all then move on from there.

Now here we are at a turning point once again, and all due to this weakness or confusion found between the two clauses that are wide open for continued interpretation, we are in a pickle again.. Now everyone is weighing in on the matter in which has brought up this First Amendment, so it's let the best mouthpiece win again I'm guessing ???

Maybe this is the very reason we should allow for a majority to record their vote on the matter, where as the majority would be allowed to weigh in heavily with that vote. Why? This would then allow for the First Amendment to be representitive of the generation who would vote either one way or the other on these matters, which are matters we continually find ourselves engauged in throughout time, so when we bring up or concern ourselves with this Amendment on such an issue or issues, it would take the confusion out of the situation for our generation lived hopefully, but even so it would be left for another generation to vote upon again.

Of course the vote would be attempted to be supressed by those who (even if are in a minority), would try and stop if thought that the vote will change this against them (or) would turn the tides against them, so we don't get that vote as needed now do we?

In summary - Due to the clash between the two clauses, a majority vote must be taken on such matters, and this in order to represent the generation at hand, as to their interpretation of these matters as decided upon with that vote.

What a mess, but not really if we operate in the right way in this nation.

 

[rightwinger]

Look beagle9, it's painfully obvious you're shooting from the hip here and that you don't understand that which you criticize. I'm going to do you a solid and help alleviate that problem. Please see the below website:

Introduction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

This is a website put up and maintained by a law professor that basically hits the high points of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Now, if you wish to continue to engage in empty platitudes and random accusations, that is your right, but you will probably only be met with same. However, if you would like to have a reasoned, intelligent conversation regarding what the Constitution says and how it has been interpreted thus far, you will have a much better conversation with the people on this site about this subject. Because, and I mean no offense, you're talking at a different level than certain of us here on this thread, and you really haven't done anything to advance your position to this point. Just saying "the judges were wrong" is a conclusion; supporting it with articulate, specific facts may get you somewhere.

Really, I'm not trying to insult or belittle you. I'm just trying to give you the tools you need to articulate your opinion on a subject for which you obviously have a passion.

As you know, it apears that there is this grave weakness found in the First Amendment between the two clauses, in which has been exploited and left in confusion by those who wish to confuse and destroy this nation (either with that weakness that is found between these two clashing clauses), or not destroy the nation with the clash being found. So I see that these clashing points are being found between the "Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause there of, where as this has left the door wide open for continued interpretation by whom ever, and at any given time I'm guessing, and so I'm guessing also that it may be found, that we are just letting the best mouth piece at any given time win, where as we all then move on from there.

Now here we are at a turning point once again, and all due to this weakness or confusion found between the two clauses that are wide open for continued interpretation, we are in a pickle again.. Now everyone is weighing in on the matter in which has brought up this First Amendment, so it's let the best mouthpiece win again I'm guessing ???

Maybe this is the very reason we should allow for a majority to record their vote on the matter, where as the majority would be allowed to weigh in heavily with that vote. Why? This would then allow for the First Amendment to be representitive of the generation who would vote either one way or the other on these matters, which are matters we continually find ourselves engauged in throughout time, so when we bring up or concern ourselves with this Amendment on such an issue or issues, it would take the confusion out of the situation for our generation lived hopefully, but even so it would be left for another generation to vote upon again.

Of course the vote would be attempted to be supressed by those who (even if are in a minority), would try and stop if thought that the vote will change this against them (or) would turn the tides against them, so we don't get that vote as needed now do we?

In summary - Due to the clash between the two clauses, a majority vote must be taken on such matters, and this in order to represent the generation at hand, as to their interpretation of these matters as decided upon with that vote.

What a mess, but not really if we operate in the right way in this nation.

Your interpretation os the first amendment is just plain scary

You actually favor VOTING on which rights others are allowed to have? Where would civil rights have been if people could vote on which rights blacks should have? The majority of Christians can vote on whether a mosque should be allowed to be built? Non-Christians should be forced to participate in Christian activities because you VOTED on it?

I am so glad that my America is nothing like the America you want us to be

 

[beagle9]

It has flown for close to 50 years now, you are not allowed to post a prayer in a public school.
Prayer in public school is not allowed....nor should it be

They are free to post the Constitution if they wish to

Oh yea, but what about where it has endowed by our creator in it? wouldn't the ACLU go after that as well, because this girl is again offended ?

Endowed by your creator is in the Declaration of Independence

Oh well, it is still by the founders right? So it would seem that the ACLU would be against anything that they wrote because of their opinions in which they held that included a creator... Sorry for the gaff...

 

[Crackerjack]

Look beagle9, it's painfully obvious you're shooting from the hip here and that you don't understand that which you criticize. I'm going to do you a solid and help alleviate that problem. Please see the below website:

Introduction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

This is a website put up and maintained by a law professor that basically hits the high points of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Now, if you wish to continue to engage in empty platitudes and random accusations, that is your right, but you will probably only be met with same. However, if you would like to have a reasoned, intelligent conversation regarding what the Constitution says and how it has been interpreted thus far, you will have a much better conversation with the people on this site about this subject. Because, and I mean no offense, you're talking at a different level than certain of us here on this thread, and you really haven't done anything to advance your position to this point. Just saying "the judges were wrong" is a conclusion; supporting it with articulate, specific facts may get you somewhere.

Really, I'm not trying to insult or belittle you. I'm just trying to give you the tools you need to articulate your opinion on a subject for which you obviously have a passion.

As you know, it apears that there is this grave weakness found in the First Amendment between the two clauses, in which has been exploited and left in confusion by those who wish to confuse and destroy this nation (either with that weakness that is found between these two clashing clauses), or not destroy the nation with the clash being found. So I see that these clashing points are being found between the "Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause there of, where as this has left the door wide open for continued interpretation by whom ever, and at any given time I'm guessing, and so I'm guessing also that it may be found, that we are just letting the best mouth piece at any given time win, where as we all then move on from there.

Now here we are at a turning point once again, and all due to this weakness or confusion found between the two clauses that are wide open for continued interpretation, we are in a pickle again.. Now everyone is weighing in on the matter in which has brought up this First Amendment, so it's let the best mouthpiece win again I'm guessing ???

Maybe this is the very reason we should allow for a majority to record their vote on the matter, where as the majority would be allowed to weigh in heavily with that vote. Why? This would then allow for the First Amendment to be representitive of the generation who would vote either one way or the other on these matters, which are matters we continually find ourselves engauged in throughout time, so when we bring up or concern ourselves with this Amendment on such an issue or issues, it would take the confusion out of the situation for our generation lived hopefully, but even so it would be left for another generation to vote upon again.

Of course the vote would be attempted to be supressed by those who (even if are in a minority), would try and stop if thought that the vote will change this against them (or) would turn the tides against them, so we don't get that vote as needed now do we?

In summary - Due to the clash between the two clauses, a majority vote must be taken on such matters, and this in order to represent the generation at hand, as to their interpretation of these matters as decided upon with that vote.

What a mess, but not really if we operate in the right way in this nation.

You didn't read anything on the website I suggested, did you?

 

[beagle9]

Look beagle9, it's painfully obvious you're shooting from the hip here and that you don't understand that which you criticize. I'm going to do you a solid and help alleviate that problem. Please see the below website:

Introduction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

This is a website put up and maintained by a law professor that basically hits the high points of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Now, if you wish to continue to engage in empty platitudes and random accusations, that is your right, but you will probably only be met with same. However, if you would like to have a reasoned, intelligent conversation regarding what the Constitution says and how it has been interpreted thus far, you will have a much better conversation with the people on this site about this subject. Because, and I mean no offense, you're talking at a different level than certain of us here on this thread, and you really haven't done anything to advance your position to this point. Just saying "the judges were wrong" is a conclusion; supporting it with articulate, specific facts may get you somewhere.

Really, I'm not trying to insult or belittle you. I'm just trying to give you the tools you need to articulate your opinion on a subject for which you obviously have a passion.

As you know, it apears that there is this grave weakness found in the First Amendment between the two clauses, in which has been exploited and left in confusion by those who wish to confuse and destroy this nation (either with that weakness that is found between these two clashing clauses), or not destroy the nation with the clash being found. So I see that these clashing points are being found between the "Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause there of, where as this has left the door wide open for continued interpretation by whom ever, and at any given time I'm guessing, and so I'm guessing also that it may be found, that we are just letting the best mouth piece at any given time win, where as we all then move on from there.

Now here we are at a turning point once again, and all due to this weakness or confusion found between the two clauses that are wide open for continued interpretation, we are in a pickle again.. Now everyone is weighing in on the matter in which has brought up this First Amendment, so it's let the best mouthpiece win again I'm guessing ???

Maybe this is the very reason we should allow for a majority to record their vote on the matter, where as the majority would be allowed to weigh in heavily with that vote. Why? This would then allow for the First Amendment to be representitive of the generation who would vote either one way or the other on these matters, which are matters we continually find ourselves engauged in throughout time, so when we bring up or concern ourselves with this Amendment on such an issue or issues, it would take the confusion out of the situation for our generation lived hopefully, but even so it would be left for another generation to vote upon again.

Of course the vote would be attempted to be supressed by those who (even if are in a minority), would try and stop if thought that the vote will change this against them (or) would turn the tides against them, so we don't get that vote as needed now do we?

In summary - Due to the clash between the two clauses, a majority vote must be taken on such matters, and this in order to represent the generation at hand, as to their interpretation of these matters as decided upon with that vote.

What a mess, but not really if we operate in the right way in this nation.

Your interpretation os the first amendment is just plain scary

You actually favor VOTING on which rights others are allowed to have? Where would civil rights have been if people could vote on which rights blacks should have? The majority of Christians can vote on whether a mosque should be allowed to be built? Non-Christians should be forced to participate in Christian activities because you VOTED on it?

I am so glad that my America is nothing like the America you want us to be

Nothing would be forced upon another, but quite the contrary would be the case.. It would mean that for those who voted in a majority upon a specific issue, and in union upon said specific issue, it would then allow for a good work to be obtained for those who voted upon that specific issue, and this would be so that there would be no abuse by others upon them afterwards, and this for those whom had voted for their right not to be abused by others per that vote taken afterwards... Some of the things that have been allowed now, or have been done or undone in this nation, well the jury (the people) are still out on many of them, and will remain out on them until all the evidence is finally in.