Crowd stunned after valedictorian rips up speech, recites Lord’s prayer

[longknife]

The 1st Amendment specifically prohibits government employees from endorsing any religion. This means that a principal/teacher/coach leading a prayer in a public school facility would be endorsing religion.

so what government employee endorsed prayer here?

That is the whole point. The kid was NOT a government employee.

and what specifically in the 1st amendment prohibits a government official from leading a prayer? all it say is government shall make no laws against. you libs sure do love to twist words don't you

The term used by the 1st Amendment is a prohibition on the ENDORSEMENT of any religion. In this context it means "approve". For a government official to lead a prayer means that they are approving of it. That approval is prohibited by the 1st Amendment. Furthermore please refrain from accusing others of your own distortions. Thank you and have a nice day.

Excuse me, have you READ the 1st Amendment lately? If not, here it is:

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

How, in any way, shape, or means does this have ANYTHING to do with the garbage you spouted that I highlighted in bold?

 

[Spoonman]

You stated that my "pushing back against anti-homosexuality is not sincere......again......"Wait....what?"

his actions are no less sincere. and that is your problem, you can't see that. that's the joke.

Wasn't it YOU who said it was "push-back"? So....explain to us how a prayer can be sincere and "push-back" at the same time?

explain to me how homosexuality can be sincere if you are pushing back against the limitation imposed on you. do you really miss that point?

 

[koshergrl]

Approve apparently now means "establish".

Another word we'll have to change in our internet dictionaries.

 

[koshergrl]

There is no government "right" to impose any specific religion. His personal rights were not being infringed. You are conflating two entirely different things here.

so he did , nothing wrong. in that case. so lets get all the whiny anti god crybabies who are so offended at the mention of his name to just move along. the school told him there would be no more prayer at graduation. he was just exercising his right to pray. time to move on. the schools action prompted his action. and that's how it goes.

If you had read the earlier posts by Jake, Avg_Joe and yours truly you would know that was where we all were right from the outset on this issue. Your puerile mischaracterization merely reflects upon your own lack of comprehension as to where Atheists stand when it comes to rights. However you do get credit for being quick on the uptake. Have a nice day.

Ironic, your use of the word "puerile"..since you, and the posters you state, are fairly well known for that quality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

koshergrl is looking in the mirror as she writes. Proves my earlier point.

 

[Politico]

The act was apparently in protest of the Pickens County School District’s decision to no longer include prayer at graduation ceremonies, Christian News reported.

The act was obviously theatrical and preplanned..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which was the valedictorian's right to do. If the school district banned prayer, then the grad said basically, "Fuck you, that won't stand." His right to do so.

 

[Derideo_Te]

so what government employee endorsed prayer here?

That is the whole point. The kid was NOT a government employee.

and what specifically in the 1st amendment prohibits a government official from leading a prayer? all it say is government shall make no laws against. you libs sure do love to twist words don't you

The term used by the 1st Amendment is a prohibition on the ENDORSEMENT of any religion. In this context it means "approve". For a government official to lead a prayer means that they are approving of it. That approval is prohibited by the 1st Amendment. Furthermore please refrain from accusing others of your own distortions. Thank you and have a nice day.

I still can't see anyway, any wording in first amendment can be construed as saying a government employee can not endorse a religion. all I see is that government shall make no laws against or prohibit the free exercise of. what I find even more off the wall is that a government that is writing a document to protect these rights would expect an agent of that government to give up their right to exercise their rights just because they are a government employee. the whole argument flies in the face of logic.

Mea culpa, I was using the wrong terminology. Let's begin again with the actual wording.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You are correct in that there is nothing specific stating that a government employee cannot exercise their own personal religious freedom. However in their official capacity they cannot do anything that would be perceived as an endorsement of any specific religion.

In order to make this simple let's use an example. Assume that there is a new governor elected in your state. One day he converts to Satanism. He then goes to your State house and says that he will give an opening prayer at the beginning of the session. His prayer consists of an endorsement of satanism and calls on everyone in the legislature to convert to satanism. Is he within his rights to use the power of his office to endorse satanism and convert others to his beliefs?

 

[Spoonman]

That is the whole point. The kid was NOT a government employee.


The term used by the 1st Amendment is a prohibition on the ENDORSEMENT of any religion. In this context it means "approve". For a government official to lead a prayer means that they are approving of it. That approval is prohibited by the 1st Amendment. Furthermore please refrain from accusing others of your own distortions. Thank you and have a nice day.

I still can't see anyway, any wording in first amendment can be construed as saying a government employee can not endorse a religion. all I see is that government shall make no laws against or prohibit the free exercise of. what I find even more off the wall is that a government that is writing a document to protect these rights would expect an agent of that government to give up their right to exercise their rights just because they are a government employee. the whole argument flies in the face of logic.

Mea culpa, I was using the wrong terminology. Let's begin again with the actual wording.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You are correct in that there is nothing specific stating that a government employee cannot exercise their own personal religious freedom. However in their official capacity they cannot do anything that would be perceived as an endorsement of any specific religion.

In order to make this simple let's use an example. Assume that there is a new governor elected in your state. One day he converts to Satanism. He then goes to your State house and says that he will give an opening prayer at the beginning of the session. His prayer consists of an endorsement of satanism and calls on everyone in the legislature to convert to satanism. Is he within his rights to use the power of his office to endorse satanism and convert others to his beliefs?

so if I say a prayer am I endorsing my religion or am I worshiping god? if I wear an Armani suit to work am I endorsing Armani or am I abiding by the proper dress code? if I chose to kiss another man in public am I endorsing homosexuality or am I displaying affection to my partner? how does a document which specifically says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
become interpreted as a prohibitive statement? and again a government that goes to the trouble of including such an expression of freedom become a document that denies the employees of that government those exact freedoms?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I still can't see anyway, any wording in first amendment can be construed as saying a government employee can not endorse a religion. all I see is that government shall make no laws against or prohibit the free exercise of. what I find even more off the wall is that a government that is writing a document to protect these rights would expect an agent of that government to give up their right to exercise their rights just because they are a government employee. the whole argument flies in the face of logic.

Mea culpa, I was using the wrong terminology. Let's begin again with the actual wording.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You are correct in that there is nothing specific stating that a government employee cannot exercise their own personal religious freedom. However in their official capacity they cannot do anything that would be perceived as an endorsement of any specific religion.

In order to make this simple let's use an example. Assume that there is a new governor elected in your state. One day he converts to Satanism. He then goes to your State house and says that he will give an opening prayer at the beginning of the session. His prayer consists of an endorsement of satanism and calls on everyone in the legislature to convert to satanism. Is he within his rights to use the power of his office to endorse satanism and convert others to his beliefs?

so if I say a prayer am I endorsing my religion or am I worshiping god? if I wear an Armani suit to work am I endorsing Armani or am I abiding by the proper dress code? if I chose to kiss another man in public am I endorsing homosexuality or am I displaying affection to my partner? how does a document which specifically says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
become interpreted as a prohibitive statement? and again a government that goes to the trouble of including such an expression of freedom become a document that denies the employees of that government those exact freedoms?

So just to get this straight, YOU are perfectly happy to have a governor who believes in Satanism using the power of his office to convert others to his beliefs? You are going to have no problem if he is invited to open a new school gymnasium and he takes the opportunity to tell the parents how they must teach their children to engage in satanic rituals? You don't have any problem with any of this?

 

[Hollie]

I still can't see anyway, any wording in first amendment can be construed as saying a government employee can not endorse a religion. all I see is that government shall make no laws against or prohibit the free exercise of. what I find even more off the wall is that a government that is writing a document to protect these rights would expect an agent of that government to give up their right to exercise their rights just because they are a government employee. the whole argument flies in the face of logic.

Mea culpa, I was using the wrong terminology. Let's begin again with the actual wording.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You are correct in that there is nothing specific stating that a government employee cannot exercise their own personal religious freedom. However in their official capacity they cannot do anything that would be perceived as an endorsement of any specific religion.

In order to make this simple let's use an example. Assume that there is a new governor elected in your state. One day he converts to Satanism. He then goes to your State house and says that he will give an opening prayer at the beginning of the session. His prayer consists of an endorsement of satanism and calls on everyone in the legislature to convert to satanism. Is he within his rights to use the power of his office to endorse satanism and convert others to his beliefs?

so if I say a prayer am I endorsing my religion or am I worshiping god? if I wear an Armani suit to work am I endorsing Armani or am I abiding by the proper dress code? if I chose to kiss another man in public am I endorsing homosexuality or am I displaying affection to my partner? how does a document which specifically says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
become interpreted as a prohibitive statement? and again a government that goes to the trouble of including such an expression of freedom become a document that denies the employees of that government those exact freedoms?

Your “analogies” are not appropriate.

For as much as the justices waffled on the matter, the Supreme Court ruled on this issue back in 1992 under: Lee v. Weisman

Graduation prayers if led, sponsored or promoted by a public school board is a violation of law. That does not appear to be the case concerning the situation described in the OP.

But hey, maybe at the next graduation, all those religious folk who feel slighted by not having an opportunity to regale the crowd with a prayer to their god, gods, sacred deity, supernatural entity of choice, we can just set aside the ceremony of graduating high school and play one-upsmanship with promoting our individual gawds via prayers… maybe some animal [or virgin ((((shuddering)))))] sacrifice.

 

[longknife]

Yet another thread down the tubes due to childish nit-picking!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amen to that.

 

[Spoonman]

Mea culpa, I was using the wrong terminology. Let's begin again with the actual wording.



You are correct in that there is nothing specific stating that a government employee cannot exercise their own personal religious freedom. However in their official capacity they cannot do anything that would be perceived as an endorsement of any specific religion.

In order to make this simple let's use an example. Assume that there is a new governor elected in your state. One day he converts to Satanism. He then goes to your State house and says that he will give an opening prayer at the beginning of the session. His prayer consists of an endorsement of satanism and calls on everyone in the legislature to convert to satanism. Is he within his rights to use the power of his office to endorse satanism and convert others to his beliefs?

so if I say a prayer am I endorsing my religion or am I worshiping god? if I wear an Armani suit to work am I endorsing Armani or am I abiding by the proper dress code? if I chose to kiss another man in public am I endorsing homosexuality or am I displaying affection to my partner? how does a document which specifically says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
become interpreted as a prohibitive statement? and again a government that goes to the trouble of including such an expression of freedom become a document that denies the employees of that government those exact freedoms?

Your “analogies” are not appropriate.

For as much as the justices waffled on the matter, the Supreme Court ruled on this issue back in 1992 under: Lee v. Weisman

Graduation prayers if led, sponsored or promoted by a public school board is a violation of law. That does not appear to be the case concerning the situation described in the OP.

But hey, maybe at the next graduation, all those religious folk who feel slighted by not having an opportunity to regale the crowd with a prayer to their god, gods, sacred deity, supernatural entity of choice, we can just set aside the ceremony of graduating high school and play one-upsmanship with promoting our individual gawds via prayers… maybe some animal [or virgin ((((shuddering)))))] sacrifice.

do you support citizens united?

 

[Katzndogz]

Remind me again about this religion of "peace" that you profess to believe in?

You're confusing me with Sunni Man. The religion of "peace" is Islam.

So your religion is entitled to threaten people with war and swords in the name of your deity but the others can't? Does the term "hypocrisy" ring any bells?

You are making it up as you go along. Jesus said that when he returned it would be with a sword. That means JESUS would have the sword and He would have that sword when He returned. He didn't say all Christians would have a sword. Need I remind you that Jesus isn't here right now and does not even have that much of a sword.

Muslims however take beheading infidels as a personal duty.

 

[Spoonman]

You're confusing me with Sunni Man. The religion of "peace" is Islam.

So your religion is entitled to threaten people with war and swords in the name of your deity but the others can't? Does the term "hypocrisy" ring any bells?

You are making it up as you go along. Jesus said that when he returned it would be with a sword. That means JESUS would have the sword and He would have that sword when He returned. He didn't say all Christians would have a sword. Need I remind you that Jesus isn't here right now and does not even have that much of a sword.

Muslims however take beheading infidels as a personal duty.

I have to laugh. just a week ago liberals were supporting the actions of bill ayers committing acts of domestic terrorism and acts of destruction.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Looks like koshergrl isn't the only one that doesn't get it, Jake.

 

[Ravi]

So your religion is entitled to threaten people with war and swords in the name of your deity but the others can't? Does the term "hypocrisy" ring any bells?

You are making it up as you go along. Jesus said that when he returned it would be with a sword. That means JESUS would have the sword and He would have that sword when He returned. He didn't say all Christians would have a sword. Need I remind you that Jesus isn't here right now and does not even have that much of a sword.

Muslims however take beheading infidels as a personal duty.

I have to laugh. just a week ago liberals were supporting the actions of bill ayers committing acts of domestic terrorism and acts of destruction.

:esualiar:

 

[hortysir]

He sounds like a stuck up, snot nosed little weasel.

Because....

I get that sense about him.

Now if only you could muster some of the common kind

 

[Spoonman]

You are making it up as you go along. Jesus said that when he returned it would be with a sword. That means JESUS would have the sword and He would have that sword when He returned. He didn't say all Christians would have a sword. Need I remind you that Jesus isn't here right now and does not even have that much of a sword.

Muslims however take beheading infidels as a personal duty.

I have to laugh. just a week ago liberals were supporting the actions of bill ayers committing acts of domestic terrorism and acts of destruction.

:esualiar:

check out the thread. or are you engaging in selective reading?