Another blatant Constitutional violation

[Uncensored2008]

how many times times do i have to answer the same question?

once would be a start.

 

[YWN666]

Nope, you hide your bigotry around the veneer of "constitutionality." You could have indicated your disdain of religion without using vulgar words to describe it, but you didn't.

The current move when it comes to the 1st amendment and religion is hostility to religion, not neutrality towards it. The 1st amendment was never meant to prevent people from practicing their religion in public, which is what the current crop of asshole atheists (to discriminate them from non asshole atheists) is hellbent on trying to implement.

Again, if it was the Principal leading or saying a prayer, you have a point. If its a student then I don't see the issue. In fact, most progressives would admire the students rebellious spirit if it were for a topic such as AGW or gay rights. but because it was a prayer their panties all get bunched up.

Christian fundamentalists and conservatives in general, like to couch the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as being "hostile to religion," while ignoring the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it does not suit their purpose. Enforcement of the Establishment Clause is not being "hostile to religion." You may choose to characterize it as such, but it simply is not. All the Establishment Clause is doing, is preventing YOU from forcing YOUR religious views on me via the public sector. You can come come to my front door all you want and try to tell me I need religion, so long as you are acting in a private capacity. That's not violating anything except my personal space, and there are ways of handling that. Just don't try and use governmental platforms to do it.

A student at commencement, who chooses to inject religion into their talk, is a sticky point. Is he speaking for himself, or the school? Is the school deemed to be "behind" what he is saying? I don't know how this works in actual practice, but I think that most schools will want a preview of any valedictorian talk and will tell the valedictorian that religious references are off base. What happens when the valedictorian goes out on his own and ignores his instructions? I think it at least should let the school off the hook. They can't control a "rogue valedictorian." I think, most of the time, valedictorians will be smart enough to leave religion out of it. They should.

Show me where the studen'ts speech forced you to pay a tithe, or recognize a specific religion as the official US religion, or made you join the church he belonged to. That is ESTABLISHMENT of a national religion. Allowing someone to invoke God during their valerditorian speech, as long as the school did not FORCE the person to do it is in no whay endorsement or establishment of religion, just like allowing people to put a manger in a public space is not endorsement of relgion, or having a cross on public land is not endorsement of religion. Especially if these displays are paid for 100% in private.

Again, the overall goal is the removal of religous expression from the public commons, so basically Atheism becomes the de facto established religion.

Bullshit. Forbidding this student from reciting the Lords Prayer at a graduation ceremony is NOT removing his religious expression. As I have said a dozen times, that student can stand in the hallway or in the parking lot or in the middle of a public street and recite prayers for hours on end. That's not a constitutional problem because that doesn't involve government endorsement. You also make the common mistake of equating religious neutrality with atheism. Not the same thing at all.

 

[YWN666]

If someone belongs to a religion that compels its followers to steal from others, are you going to say that kind of behavior should be allowed just because it is the basis of someone's religious beliefs?

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

You can exercise your freedom of religion UNLESS doing so infringes on someone else's rights. Your religion doesn't give you free reign to do anything you want.[/SIZE][/FONT][/B]

What right does a person speaking words you oppose, infringe?

Your right not to hear things you don't like?

Violations of the constitution infringe on all of our rights as a whole.

 

[YWN666]

Other than atheism not being a religion, and depending on how you define it, wouldn't there need to be some expression that there is no god for atheism to be the de facto established religion? In other words, the fact that a religion is not expressed from the public commons does not indicate an expression that such a religion is untrue. So preventing any religion from being expressed from the public commons does not say they are all untrue.

Totalitarianism silences all views save the one mandated by the state - which is what you seem to support.

Liberty is the free expression of views with no interference - neither in support of, or prohibiting, by the state.

Liberty is abhorred by so many here.

Liberty is what we're protecting by prohibiting people like this student from pissing on the constitution.

 

[YWN666]

Interesting extrapolation from my post. All I was doing was questioning whether a lack of religious expression equates to an atheistic expression. To put it another way, nothing does not equal something. No view does not equal a view.

When the implied violence of the state is invoked to silence all views on the existence of a deity or deities, save one - then we cannot deny that view is the established ecumenical view of the state, e.g. the state religion.

All views are not being silenced. The only thing being silenced is the prayer being spoken by that student while he is standing at that microphone at an official school graduation. It's a simple concept. Why do so many of you continue to ignore it?

 

[martybegan]

Christian fundamentalists and conservatives in general, like to couch the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as being "hostile to religion," while ignoring the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it does not suit their purpose. Enforcement of the Establishment Clause is not being "hostile to religion." You may choose to characterize it as such, but it simply is not. All the Establishment Clause is doing, is preventing YOU from forcing YOUR religious views on me via the public sector. You can come come to my front door all you want and try to tell me I need religion, so long as you are acting in a private capacity. That's not violating anything except my personal space, and there are ways of handling that. Just don't try and use governmental platforms to do it.

A student at commencement, who chooses to inject religion into their talk, is a sticky point. Is he speaking for himself, or the school? Is the school deemed to be "behind" what he is saying? I don't know how this works in actual practice, but I think that most schools will want a preview of any valedictorian talk and will tell the valedictorian that religious references are off base. What happens when the valedictorian goes out on his own and ignores his instructions? I think it at least should let the school off the hook. They can't control a "rogue valedictorian." I think, most of the time, valedictorians will be smart enough to leave religion out of it. They should.

Show me where the studen'ts speech forced you to pay a tithe, or recognize a specific religion as the official US religion, or made you join the church he belonged to. That is ESTABLISHMENT of a national religion. Allowing someone to invoke God during their valerditorian speech, as long as the school did not FORCE the person to do it is in no whay endorsement or establishment of religion, just like allowing people to put a manger in a public space is not endorsement of relgion, or having a cross on public land is not endorsement of religion. Especially if these displays are paid for 100% in private.

Again, the overall goal is the removal of religous expression from the public commons, so basically Atheism becomes the de facto established religion.

Bullshit. Forbidding this student from reciting the Lords Prayer at a graduation ceremony is NOT removing his religious expression. As I have said a dozen times, that student can stand in the hallway or in the parking lot or in the middle of a public street and recite prayers for hours on end. That's not a constitutional problem because that doesn't involve government endorsement. You also make the common mistake of equating religious neutrality with atheism. Not the same thing at all.

Yes, it is interfering with his religous expression. You make the mistake of equating hostility to religion with neutrality. Again, government endorsement has to include a government actor, or some form of compulsion on the part of the party being "co-erced".

There is none of that here. All this is about is some butthurt atheists not liking someone else using thier ability to express thier religous beliefs in the public square.

 

[YWN666]

The main issue is the 1st amendment places no such ban on expressing religion on the public commons, despite what people hostile to religion want it to. What it prohibits is government establishment of said religion, which has nothing to do with individuals expressing said religions, but everything with tithing, church membership as a litmus test, and mandatory church membership.

I think it has to do with the PLATFORM. An individual can stand on a public street and spout religion all he wants, and that's fine. When he's doing it as part of a public school program, in front of a scheduled event (in this case, commencement), that changes things.

The issue of what happens when a student violates the program provided for him by the school (not to mention religious matters) and injects religious matters on his own, outside of the scope of the prepared text, is another matter.

That is exactly the issue. I have repeatedly stated that it is not a violation if that student were to recite the same prayer in the hallway or in the school parking lot but they ignore it and continue whining about having all of their religious view silenced.

The student could have spoken about HIS religious experiences and how it made him a successful student. THAT is not a violation. Reciting a prayer during a school speech is a call for all to join in and if you object, they want to treat you like a second class citizen and stand outside until they are done.

 

[martybegan]

Other than atheism not being a religion, and depending on how you define it, wouldn't there need to be some expression that there is no god for atheism to be the de facto established religion? In other words, the fact that a religion is not expressed from the public commons does not indicate an expression that such a religion is untrue. So preventing any religion from being expressed from the public commons does not say they are all untrue.

Totalitarianism silences all views save the one mandated by the state - which is what you seem to support.

Liberty is the free expression of views with no interference - neither in support of, or prohibiting, by the state.

Liberty is abhorred by so many here.

Liberty is what we're protecting by prohibiting people like this student from pissing on the constitution.

The only one pissing on the consitution is you, by forcing your beliefs on others the second they enter the public commons.

Your wolf avatar is apt. They piss all over the place as well.

 

[martybegan]

I like using it because it differentiates the response from the original comment and you don't get to tell me how I should or should not post.



How many times do I have to say this? It is not about being offended. It is about constitutional rights. In case that doesn't sink in, I'll have another repeat standing by.



I was just pointing pout the silliness of your claims that you are not subject to the decisions of a US court. Are you also exempt from criminals laws? How does that work exactly?




Have you? Where?

Plessey V Fergueson is the best example. and tons of people disagree with citizens united.

That decision reflected the way people were thinking back in 1896, not 2013. That was the point.

Time matters not. I love it when people get called on a point then try to weasel out of it.

 

[YWN666]

The main issue is the 1st amendment places no such ban on expressing religion on the public commons, despite what people hostile to religion want it to. What it prohibits is government establishment of said religion, which has nothing to do with individuals expressing said religions, but everything with tithing, church membership as a litmus test, and mandatory church membership.

I think it has to do with the PLATFORM. An individual can stand on a public street and spout religion all he wants, and that's fine. When he's doing it as part of a public school program, in front of a scheduled event (in this case, commencement), that changes things.

The issue of what happens when a student violates the program provided for him by the school (not to mention religious matters) and injects religious matters on his own, outside of the scope of the prepared text, is another matter.

It shouldnt change things when it comes to a commencement speech. The principal cannot invoke a prayer as he is a government actor. A student is a customer of said school (and an of age one at that) and shouldnt be held to the scrutiny of a government actor.

When he is asked to recite a school approved speech at a graduation ceremony, he is considered a "government actor"

 

[Uncensored2008]

Violations of the constitution infringe on all of our rights as a whole.

What part of the Constitution does hearing words you oppose, violate?

Be specific, article and section.

 

[YWN666]

The "fire in the theater" limitation to our freedom of speech

Does not actually exist....

Standard Disclaimer: This font thing is stupid and pointless - but when in the ghetto......

Feel free to filter my posts if bold font makes you wet your panties.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Liberty is what we're protecting by prohibiting people like this student from pissing on the constitution.

Ah yes, the old "protect liberty by prohibiting liberty" trick. One you of the left are well known for....

 

[martybegan]

I think it has to do with the PLATFORM. An individual can stand on a public street and spout religion all he wants, and that's fine. When he's doing it as part of a public school program, in front of a scheduled event (in this case, commencement), that changes things.

The issue of what happens when a student violates the program provided for him by the school (not to mention religious matters) and injects religious matters on his own, outside of the scope of the prepared text, is another matter.

It shouldnt change things when it comes to a commencement speech. The principal cannot invoke a prayer as he is a government actor. A student is a customer of said school (and an of age one at that) and shouldnt be held to the scrutiny of a government actor.

When he is asked to recite a school approved speech at a graduation ceremony, he is considered a "government actor"

The school shouldnt be approving the speech in the first place. This is the valerdictorian, the schools best and brightest. They should be trusted on this.

The reason for pre-screening is because of butthurt assholes such as yourself, that get thier panties in a twist the second god is mentioned outside a church.

 

[YWN666]

Liberty is what we're protecting by prohibiting people like this student from pissing on the constitution.

Ah yes, the old "protect liberty by prohibiting liberty" trick. One you of the left are well known for....

For the 100th time, we have reasonable limitations of our freedoms.

 

[Uncensored2008]

]All views are not being silenced. The only thing being silenced is the prayer being spoken by that student while he is standing at that microphone at an official school graduation. It's a simple concept. Why do so many of you continue to ignore it?

Only views you oppose are being silenced?

Here is a simple concept;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's also the law of the land - stop violating it.

 

[YWN666]

It shouldnt change things when it comes to a commencement speech. The principal cannot invoke a prayer as he is a government actor. A student is a customer of said school (and an of age one at that) and shouldnt be held to the scrutiny of a government actor.

When he is asked to recite a school approved speech at a graduation ceremony, he is considered a "government actor"

The school shouldnt be approving the speech in the first place. This is the valerdictorian, the schools best and brightest. They should be trusted on this.

The reason for pre-screening is because of butthurt assholes such as yourself, that get thier panties in a twist the second god is mentioned outside a church.

But when I say I have no problem with the student reciting the prayer in the school hallway, you ignore it because it doesn't fit into your rabid rants. Some christians think that having to follow the rules that we all have to follow is persecution of christians. That's bullshit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Feel free to filter my posts if bold font makes you wet your panties.

You are a little child who must scream, knowing that your words alone do not merit attention.

 

[Uncensored2008]

For the 100th time, we have reasonable limitations of our freedoms.

For the 100th time - your war on civil liberties is not reasonable.

 

[YWN666]

]All views are not being silenced. The only thing being silenced is the prayer being spoken by that student while he is standing at that microphone at an official school graduation. It's a simple concept. Why do so many of you continue to ignore it?

Only views you oppose are being silenced?

Here is a simple concept;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's also the law of the land - stop violating it.

and on and on you go around in circles......................... It's pointless trying to reason with an unreasonable person like you. Go ahead and bust a gut thinking that you're the poor persecuted minority. It just makes you look like a child.