Another blatant Constitutional violation

[martybegan]

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.

If the student chose any other topic, then by you it would be fine, but the second religion is involved as a TOPIC, not a requirement, it becomes taboo.

So some saying they took inspiration from the sunrise for thier academic success could say it, but someone who said they were sucessful due to thier deep personal relationship with God would be censored.

That is infringment on free exercise. That is persecution of those with religous beliefs.

Why, in this case is the lords prayer nothing more than a poem? If he wanted to recite a poem it wouldnt be an issue, but the second religion is involved, even though the government is NOT ENDORSING IT, people get SO SO offended.

 

[martybegan]

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.

There is nothing reasonable about preventing a student during a commencment from mentioning God. It is utter childishness on the part of anti-thesitic basement dwelling butthurt assholes.

 

[YWN666]

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

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

If you think there is no limitation on free speech, then walk up to a police officer and tell him that you are planning to kill the President or start a stampede by yelling fire in a crowded theater and let me know how that works out for you.

 

[YWN666]

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.

There is nothing reasonable about preventing a student during a commencment from mentioning God. It is utter childishness on the part of anti-thesitic basement dwelling butthurt assholes.

Holy fuck, just how stupid are you? No one said he couldn't mention god.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

If you think there is no limitation on free speech, then walk up to a police officer and tell him that you are planning to kill the President or start a stampede by yelling fire in a crowded theater and let me know how that works out for you.

1. that is a threat to kill someone, which if found to be based on some evidence of ability, would get you convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The speech is not the crime, the potential action and planning is.

2. In this case your words can cause a panic, and bodily injury to someone in said panic. the crime is the result of the words, not the words themselves., and what you are convicted of is the damage or potential damage to others BY your words, not the words themselves.

Show me where reciting the lords prayer can kill someone who hears it (Power Word: Kill for your D&D nerds out there) or will make people scream and flee for the exits of the commencment, and then you may have a point.

If not, fail.

 

[martybegan]

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

There is nothing reasonable about preventing a student during a commencment from mentioning God. It is utter childishness on the part of anti-thesitic basement dwelling butthurt assholes.

Holy fuck, just how stupid are you? No one said he couldn't mention god.

Really? just what do you think the pre-clearance was about?

And by your logic, he shouldnt be able to. What is a prayer except a poem about God?

 

[YWN666]

How???????
Are you responsible for what I say? Are Joe Biden's speech writers responsible for his ad lib blunders? Is the US House of Representatives responsible for Hank Johnson being worried Guam may tip over?

I'm not going to keep repeating the same answer. Look at the quotes from the court decision I posted. It explains the concept pretty clearly.

And yet you continue to repeat the same answer, ad nausea.

Only because it is a valid answer and you refuse to listen because it kills your lame argument.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Only because it is a valid answer and you refuse to listen because it kills your lame argument

Sparky, you've failed to answer:

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

Be specific, article and section.

Offer valid support for your war against civil liberties!

 

[YWN666]

There is nothing reasonable about preventing a student during a commencment from mentioning God. It is utter childishness on the part of anti-thesitic basement dwelling butthurt assholes.

Holy fuck, just how stupid are you? No one said he couldn't mention god.

Really? just what do you think the pre-clearance was about?

And by your logic, he shouldnt be able to. What is a prayer except a poem about God?

You're still not getting it. Talking ABOUT religion is OK as I have already said a few times. Leading the audience to PRACTICE it by reciting a prayer with him is not.

 

[YWN666]

Only because it is a valid answer and you refuse to listen because it kills your lame argument

Sparky, you've failed to answer:

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

Be specific, article and section.

Offer valid support for your war against civil liberties!

False argument. No one said it was a violation because the student said words anyone opposes.

 

[YWN666]

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

If you think there is no limitation on free speech, then walk up to a police officer and tell him that you are planning to kill the President or start a stampede by yelling fire in a crowded theater and let me know how that works out for you.

1. that is a threat to kill someone, which if found to be based on some evidence of ability, would get you convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The speech is not the crime, the potential action and planning is.

But we're talking about just SAYING the words. That alone is enough to get you arrested without even demonstrating the potential. You asked for an example where our first amendment rights were limited and I provided it.

2. In this case your words can cause a panic, and bodily injury to someone in said panic. the crime is the result of the words, not the words themselves., and what you are convicted of is the damage or potential damage to others BY your words, not the words themselves.

SAYING the words can cause the injuries so SAYING them in that circumstance can get you arrested.

Show me where reciting the lords prayer can kill someone who hears it (Power Word: Kill for your D&D nerds out there) or will make people scream and flee for the exits of the commencment, and then you may have a point.

If not, fail.

You don't quite grasp what an analogy is, do you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

False argument. No one said it was a violation because the student said words anyone opposes.

You'll never answer, because you have no answer.

Your excuse for attacking the 1st amendment rights of others was that they infringed your rights.

Clearly that is a brazen lie. You can point to no recognized right that the speech of others infringes. You are simply a thug seeking to crush the civil rights of those who have differing views than you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You don't quite grasp what an analogy is, do you?

Because Atheism is the established state religion, you view any contrary utterance, such as that which was made by this student, to be blasphemy.

You are no different than a Taliban Imam, hunting blasphemers and persecuting those who differ from your faith.

 

[Montrovant]

You don't quite grasp what an analogy is, do you?

Because Atheism is the established state religion, you view any contrary utterance, such as that which was made by this student, to be blasphemy.

You are no different than a Taliban Imam, hunting blasphemers and persecuting those who differ from your faith.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'll bite, exactly how does your position vary from the Taliban? Other than the obvious that the Taliban enforces Islam only and you enforce Atheism only speech?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies only to government and law/policy making entities, and only when government seeks to conjoin itself with religion in a manner offensive to the Constitution.

Religious expression is allowed in all venues, public and private, provided religion concerning the former is not sanctioned by official government decree. The only goal with regard to First Amendment case law is to keep church and state separate in accordance with the Framers’ original intent.

And as already correctly noted, ‘atheism’ is not ‘religion,’ it’s ignorant idiocy to believe otherwise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

If the student chose any other topic, then by you it would be fine, but the second religion is involved as a TOPIC, not a requirement, it becomes taboo.

So some saying they took inspiration from the sunrise for thier academic success could say it, but someone who said they were sucessful due to thier deep personal relationship with God would be censored.

That is infringment on free exercise. That is persecution of those with religous beliefs.

Why, in this case is the lords prayer nothing more than a poem? If he wanted to recite a poem it wouldnt be an issue, but the second religion is involved, even though the government is NOT ENDORSING IT, people get SO SO offended.

More nonsense.

The case law clearly indicates that schools indeed have the right to control student speech in the context of an official school function, such as graduation. The student sustains no First Amendment infringement.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The case law clearly indicates that schools indeed have the right to control student speech in the context of an official school function, such as graduation. The student sustains no First Amendment infringement.

While that may be true, the subject line of this thread is:

Another blatant Constitutional violation

I think you will agree that the facts of this case does not indicate any Constituitional violataion whatsoever.

 

[Sunshine]

The case law clearly indicates that schools indeed have the right to control student speech in the context of an official school function, such as graduation. The student sustains no First Amendment infringement.

While that may be true, the subject line of this thread is:

Another blatant Constitutional violation

I think you will agree that the facts of this case does not indicate any Constituitional violataion whatsoever.

I think he is a law student. Maybe on day he will read his cases.

 

[Montrovant]

I'll bite, exactly how does your position vary from the Taliban? Other than the obvious that the Taliban enforces Islam only and you enforce Atheism only speech?

First, the only position I've stated here is that lack of religious expression does not equal atheism.

Next, I haven't seen any atheistic speech being promoted in place of religious speech in government.

Last, the portion of your post I put in bold states that atheism has been established as the state religion. I find that funny, both because it is obviously not the case, as well as because atheism is not a religion.

You can feel free to show evidence of atheism having been established as the state religion, if you like. You can also feel free to show any evidence that I enforce any type of speech on anyone (excepting the little girl who I nanny ).