Another blatant Constitutional violation

[YWN666]

You keep repeating the same false ideas that I've already explained away so I'm wasting my time. The Courts say you're wrong and I agree with the Courts.

It is clearly your goal to end civil liberties.

Baloney. I am defending civil liberties.

Have you noticed that there are more standing up to you as time goes on?

That's the logical fallacy known as "appeal to popularity". It means nothing.

 

[Ernie S.]

He was supposed to read a speech approved by the school but instead he disregarded their direction and lead the audience in a prayer and that constitutes government endorsement. He can stand in the hallway and recite prayers until he is blue in the face but when he stands at a school podium at a school graduation over a school PA system, he can't. He could have even gotten by if he spoke about how religion helped him be a successful student but the prayer was over the line (and was he really showing true christian behavior by lying to the school about his intentions in reading that prayer? - what he did was a real "fuck you" to the school and others in the crowd). People have the right to come to school functions and not be subjected to any religious indoctrination.

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.

He was not an agent of the government. He was exercising his rights as a private citizen. A private citizen reciting the Lord's Prayer, in no way indicates the establishment of a State religion regardless of where he was.

The first amendment is numero uno for a reason.

There are reasonable limits to our constitutional freedoms and this is one of them.

This is hardly shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, threatening the life of the President or inciting a riot.
Show me how anyone was harmed, threatened or incited by the recitation of The Lord's Prayer.

And PLEASE! drop the large, bold font, except for emphasis. Your opinions are not so important or brilliant that they should stand out above anyone else's contributions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Baloney. I am defending civil liberties.

Ah, the old "defense through revocation" strategy.

Only by silencing speech not approved of by the party can you ensure freedom of expression.

That's the logical fallacy known as "appeal to popularity". It means nothing.

You fail to understand the fallacy you seek to invoke;

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.

The above has nothing to do with my acknowledgement that resistance to your war on civil rights is increasing. The fact is that a demand that we abide by the Constitution is growing.

The bottom line is you seek to silence through force or implied force, those who hold views contrary to your own.

 

[martybegan]

He was supposed to read a speech approved by the school but instead he disregarded their direction and lead the audience in a prayer and that constitutes government endorsement. He can stand in the hallway and recite prayers until he is blue in the face but when he stands at a school podium at a school graduation over a school PA system, he can't. He could have even gotten by if he spoke about how religion helped him be a successful student but the prayer was over the line (and was he really showing true christian behavior by lying to the school about his intentions in reading that prayer? - what he did was a real "fuck you" to the school and others in the crowd). People have the right to come to school functions and not be subjected to any religious indoctrination.

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.

He was not an agent of the government. He was exercising his rights as a private citizen. A private citizen reciting the Lord's Prayer, in no way indicates the establishment of a State religion regardless of where he was.

The first amendment is numero uno for a reason.

There are reasonable limits to our constitutional freedoms and this is one of them.

Telling a valerdictorian he cannot pray or even mention religion in his speech is not reasonable.

 

[Ernie S.]

You keep repeating the same false ideas that I've already explained away so I'm wasting my time. The Courts say you're wrong and I agree with the Courts.

It is clearly your goal to end civil liberties.

Baloney. I am defending civil liberties.

Have you noticed that there are more standing up to you as time goes on?

That's the logical fallacy known as "appeal to popularity". It means nothing.

Exactly which civil liberty are you defending? Be specific.

 

[YWN666]

There are reasonable limits to our constitutional freedoms and this is one of them.

You failed to elucidate what rights of yours are infringed by a private citizen expressing views your disagree with are?

This is not a matter of a private citizen expressing his views. I don;t give a shit if a student wants to preach about Jesus in the hallway but the moment he takes the stage as part of the official school graduation using the school PA system, he is deemed to be sanctioned by the school.

I realize that you want to use the state to force your views on all others, but what rights are infringed that warrant you revoking the first amendment?

What views do you think I am trying to force on others? Fairness under the constitution? Nah, we can't have THAT, can we?

I don't expect and answer, nor will I get one.

Wrong again.

 

[YWN666]

It is clearly your goal to end civil liberties.

Baloney. I am defending civil liberties.

Have you noticed that there are more standing up to you as time goes on?

That's the logical fallacy known as "appeal to popularity". It means nothing.

Exactly which civil liberty are you defending? Be specific.

The right to be free of government endorsed religion.

 

[Ernie S.]

There are reasonable limits to our constitutional freedoms and this is one of them.

You failed to elucidate what rights of yours are infringed by a private citizen expressing views your disagree with are?

This is not a matter of a private citizen expressing his views. I don;t give a shit if a student wants to preach about Jesus in the hallway but the moment he takes the stage as part of the official school graduation using the school PA system, he is deemed to be sanctioned by the school.

I realize that you want to use the state to force your views on all others, but what rights are infringed that warrant you revoking the first amendment?

What views do you think I am trying to force on others? Fairness under the constitution? Nah, we can't have THAT, can we?

I don't expect and answer, nor will I get one.

Wrong again.

Once he went off script, government sanction ceased and his private citizen rights took precedence.

 

[martybegan]

Baloney. I am defending civil liberties.



That's the logical fallacy known as "appeal to popularity". It means nothing.

Exactly which civil liberty are you defending? Be specific.

The right to be free of government endorsed religion.

You have no right to be "free" of religion, if you consider even being exposed to it a lack of being "free". What government cannot do is establish or advocate a religion, and this restriction is limited only to the government itself, not the people in the government (which is why you can be president and still be in a church, or even mention God).

What you want is religion removed from the public square, which was never the intent of the amendment. Again, you propose hostility to religion, not neutrality.

 

[Ernie S.]

Baloney. I am defending civil liberties.



That's the logical fallacy known as "appeal to popularity". It means nothing.

Exactly which civil liberty are you defending? Be specific.

The right to be free of government endorsed religion.

It's been pointed out several times that he did not read the government endorsed speech.
Try again.

 

[YWN666]

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.

He was not an agent of the government. He was exercising his rights as a private citizen. A private citizen reciting the Lord's Prayer, in no way indicates the establishment of a State religion regardless of where he was.

The first amendment is numero uno for a reason.

There are reasonable limits to our constitutional freedoms and this is one of them.

Telling a valerdictorian he cannot pray or even mention religion in his speech is not reasonable.

No one said he could not mention religion. Telling him that he can't lead a prayer at a graduation IS reasonable and if you disagree, then call the Supreme Court at (202) 479-3000. After hearing from you, I'm sure they will reverse all of their decisions.

 

[martybegan]

There are reasonable limits to our constitutional freedoms and this is one of them.

Telling a valerdictorian he cannot pray or even mention religion in his speech is not reasonable.

No one said he could not mention religion. Telling him that he can't lead a prayer at a graduation IS reasonable and if you disagree, then call the Supreme Court at (202) 479-3000. After hearing from you, I'm sure they will reverse all of their decisions.

Now you are really getting butthurt if you are throwing out the SC's number.

 

[YWN666]

There are reasonable limits to our constitutional freedoms and this is one of them.

This is not a matter of a private citizen expressing his views. I don;t give a shit if a student wants to preach about Jesus in the hallway but the moment he takes the stage as part of the official school graduation using the school PA system, he is deemed to be sanctioned by the school.



What views do you think I am trying to force on others? Fairness under the constitution? Nah, we can't have THAT, can we?

I don't expect and answer, nor will I get one.

Wrong again.

Once he went off script, government sanction ceased and his private citizen rights took precedence.

The school was still responsible for the speech he did read.

 

[YWN666]

Telling a valerdictorian he cannot pray or even mention religion in his speech is not reasonable.

No one said he could not mention religion. Telling him that he can't lead a prayer at a graduation IS reasonable and if you disagree, then call the Supreme Court at (202) 479-3000. After hearing from you, I'm sure they will reverse all of their decisions.

Now you are really getting butthurt if you are throwing out the SC's number.

I'm just giving you an opportunity to dazzle the Supreme Court with your legal brilliance.

 

[martybegan]

No one said he could not mention religion. Telling him that he can't lead a prayer at a graduation IS reasonable and if you disagree, then call the Supreme Court at (202) 479-3000. After hearing from you, I'm sure they will reverse all of their decisions.

Now you are really getting butthurt if you are throwing out the SC's number.

I'm just giving you an opportunity to dazzle the Supreme Court with your legal brilliance.

Again, more butthurt.

Also according to the article he did not "lead" the prayer, he mearly starting saying it.

The last kicker is the person complaining is from the "freedom from religion" foundation, a cover name for asshole atheists if I ever heard one.

I personally dont consider my freedoms and other freedoms (not the freedom to not be offended) under the juristiction of 9 unelected lawyers.

Again, Plessey V Fergueson was a decsion that stood for decades. I guess since you always think the court is right, segregation was right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is not a matter of a private citizen expressing his views.

Oh?

A high school student determines the policy of the state?

I don;t give a shit if a student wants to preach about Jesus in the hallway but the moment he takes the stage as part of the official school graduation using the school PA system, he is deemed to be sanctioned by the school.

Deemed by whom?

You know, I was at a high school football game, and there were people using the PA to hawk car washes and promote illegal gambling on behalf of the PTA. Somehow though - this isn't considered "established policy" by your crusaders to end the 1st Amendment..

Only if ideas that are contrary to yours are expressed, do you come unglued.

I understand, just like a Muslim in Iran, you view expression of competing view to be blasphemy when uttered on what you see as sacred ground of the holy state.

What views do you think I am trying to force on others? Fairness under the constitution? Nah, we can't have THAT, can we?

Fairness is that no one can utter ideas that you don't like?

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.

You are at war to end civil rights - but there are those of us who will no longer remain silent as you crush the Constitution.

 

[Ernie S.]

This is not a matter of a private citizen expressing his views. I don;t give a shit if a student wants to preach about Jesus in the hallway but the moment he takes the stage as part of the official school graduation using the school PA system, he is deemed to be sanctioned by the school.



What views do you think I am trying to force on others? Fairness under the constitution? Nah, we can't have THAT, can we?



Wrong again.

Once he went off script, government sanction ceased and his private citizen rights took precedence.

The school was still responsible for the speech he did read.

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?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm just giving you an opportunity to dazzle the Supreme Court with your legal brilliance.

You fascists have not done well with SCOTUS over the last decade. Cases where the 9th circuit has stripped civil liberties, have routinely been overturned by the higher court.

Granted, if one of the constitutionalists on the court dies or retires, Obama will appoint a Kagan type who is hostile to civil liberties - but at the moment, the court is not your ally.

 

[legaleagle_45]

In this particular situation they should have cut the mike..and had security walk him off stage.

They didn't.

So it's done in this instance.

The best thing they can do moving forward is issue a warning that if that happens again..that's what they will do.

Why not arrest him and throw him in jail?

Why? He's not violating the law.

Need I remind you that the title of this topic is:

Another blatant Constitutional violation

 

[Ernie S.]

Continue on folks. I gotta get on with life here. BBL