Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Sweetcheeks, if you had a rational mind you wouldn't be arguing with me about settled American law, from 50 years ago.I'm not here to spoon-feed you. If you can't keep up, don't bother.Why would I bother producing what was found perfectly valid five decades ago?Great ! Then you'll have no problem producing one.
"1963 and after
In two landmark decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the US Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools."
School prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You didn't use that argument.
You said it was the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Which clearly can't support what you call "the law" because the clause forbids any such law.
Appealing to the case is one thing.
Appealing to the logic it was built on is something else and something you can't support.
You are classic example of what happens when schools don't work.
You can't argue.....or you grab what suites you with no logic whatsoever.
I'm the one who isn't going to do your homework for you.
He doesn't get paid to pray to his god on our time. He was already told to knock it off, and he refuses. See ya, coach...I'd suggest someone look up Lee v Weisman, 1992
" In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Lee the Court developed the coercion test. Under this test the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or (2) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will."
The coach coerced NO ONE to join him in his prayer after the game.
If his attorney is bright enough to use this as a defense, the coach wins.
That's patently not true. They are not 'in flux.' They are the law unless or until the law is changed. Playing games with semantics is not going to change that.Sweetcheeks, if you had a rational mind you wouldn't be arguing with me about settled American law, from 50 years ago.I'm not here to spoon-feed you. If you can't keep up, don't bother.Why would I bother producing what was found perfectly valid five decades ago?
"1963 and after
In two landmark decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the US Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools."
School prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You didn't use that argument.
You said it was the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Which clearly can't support what you call "the law" because the clause forbids any such law.
Appealing to the case is one thing.
Appealing to the logic it was built on is something else and something you can't support.
You are classic example of what happens when schools don't work.
You can't argue.....or you grab what suites you with no logic whatsoever.
I'm the one who isn't going to do your homework for you.
If you had a working mind, you'd realize that the term "settled law" is an oxymoron.
As I've pointed out on several occasions, things like Roe v. Wade are not static (settled) but are constantly in flux.
Please ask those who educated you for a refund.
There is nothing in flux about this or RvW, just people trying to skirt the laws with new ones or not obey the law in the first place, like Coach Jesus, who isn't obeying Jesus either.Sweetcheeks, if you had a rational mind you wouldn't be arguing with me about settled American law, from 50 years ago.I'm not here to spoon-feed you. If you can't keep up, don't bother.Why would I bother producing what was found perfectly valid five decades ago?
"1963 and after
In two landmark decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the US Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools."
School prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You didn't use that argument.
You said it was the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Which clearly can't support what you call "the law" because the clause forbids any such law.
Appealing to the case is one thing.
Appealing to the logic it was built on is something else and something you can't support.
You are classic example of what happens when schools don't work.
You can't argue.....or you grab what suites you with no logic whatsoever.
I'm the one who isn't going to do your homework for you.
If you had a working mind, you'd realize that the term "settled law" is an oxymoron.
As I've pointed out on several occasions, things like Roe v. Wade are not static (settled) but are constantly in flux.
Please ask those who educated you for a refund.
I don't have to make an argument that the Supreme Court found perfectly valid, in 1963.He doesn't get paid to pray to his god on our time. He was already told to knock it off, and he refuses. See ya, coach...I'd suggest someone look up Lee v Weisman, 1992
" In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Lee the Court developed the coercion test. Under this test the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or (2) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will."
The coach coerced NO ONE to join him in his prayer after the game.
If his attorney is bright enough to use this as a defense, the coach wins.
Insubordination is defined and legitimate cause for discipline.
Better argument than the first amendment, which is not an argument (that you've been able to make).
Religion is what cannot be established, meaning promoted or sponsored by the state, dumbshit.It wasn't supposed to be, and never should have continued. We are a secular, by law, nation.It was a part of our very first Congress, thus intention was set, whether you like it or not.And it shouldn't be. There was a big fight about that, long ago.Pray has been a part of Congress since its beginnings.
The law that can't be established...got it.
I don't have to make an argument that the Supreme Court found perfectly valid, in 1963.He doesn't get paid to pray to his god on our time. He was already told to knock it off, and he refuses. See ya, coach...I'd suggest someone look up Lee v Weisman, 1992
" In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Lee the Court developed the coercion test. Under this test the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or (2) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will."
The coach coerced NO ONE to join him in his prayer after the game.
If his attorney is bright enough to use this as a defense, the coach wins.
Insubordination is defined and legitimate cause for discipline.
Better argument than the first amendment, which is not an argument (that you've been able to make).
There is nothing in flux about this or RvW, just people trying to skirt the laws with new ones or not obey the law in the first place, like Coach Jesus, who isn't obeying Jesus either.Sweetcheeks, if you had a rational mind you wouldn't be arguing with me about settled American law, from 50 years ago.I'm not here to spoon-feed you. If you can't keep up, don't bother.You didn't use that argument.
You said it was the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Which clearly can't support what you call "the law" because the clause forbids any such law.
Appealing to the case is one thing.
Appealing to the logic it was built on is something else and something you can't support.
You are classic example of what happens when schools don't work.
You can't argue.....or you grab what suites you with no logic whatsoever.
I'm the one who isn't going to do your homework for you.
If you had a working mind, you'd realize that the term "settled law" is an oxymoron.
As I've pointed out on several occasions, things like Roe v. Wade are not static (settled) but are constantly in flux.
Please ask those who educated you for a refund.
That's patently not true. They are not 'in flux.' They are the law unless or until the law is changed. Playing games with semantics is not going to change that.Sweetcheeks, if you had a rational mind you wouldn't be arguing with me about settled American law, from 50 years ago.I'm not here to spoon-feed you. If you can't keep up, don't bother.You didn't use that argument.
You said it was the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Which clearly can't support what you call "the law" because the clause forbids any such law.
Appealing to the case is one thing.
Appealing to the logic it was built on is something else and something you can't support.
You are classic example of what happens when schools don't work.
You can't argue.....or you grab what suites you with no logic whatsoever.
I'm the one who isn't going to do your homework for you.
If you had a working mind, you'd realize that the term "settled law" is an oxymoron.
As I've pointed out on several occasions, things like Roe v. Wade are not static (settled) but are constantly in flux.
Please ask those who educated you for a refund.
It's not the law, dumbass, what cannot be established is religion.There is nothing in flux about this or RvW, just people trying to skirt the laws with new ones or not obey the law in the first place, like Coach Jesus, who isn't obeying Jesus either.Sweetcheeks, if you had a rational mind you wouldn't be arguing with me about settled American law, from 50 years ago.I'm not here to spoon-feed you. If you can't keep up, don't bother.
You are classic example of what happens when schools don't work.
You can't argue.....or you grab what suites you with no logic whatsoever.
I'm the one who isn't going to do your homework for you.
If you had a working mind, you'd realize that the term "settled law" is an oxymoron.
As I've pointed out on several occasions, things like Roe v. Wade are not static (settled) but are constantly in flux.
Please ask those who educated you for a refund.
That law that can't be established.
Got it.
There is nothing in flux about this or RvW, just people trying to skirt the laws with new ones or not obey the law in the first place, like Coach Jesus, who isn't obeying Jesus either.Sweetcheeks, if you had a rational mind you wouldn't be arguing with me about settled American law, from 50 years ago.I'm not here to spoon-feed you. If you can't keep up, don't bother.You didn't use that argument.
You said it was the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Which clearly can't support what you call "the law" because the clause forbids any such law.
Appealing to the case is one thing.
Appealing to the logic it was built on is something else and something you can't support.
You are classic example of what happens when schools don't work.
You can't argue.....or you grab what suites you with no logic whatsoever.
I'm the one who isn't going to do your homework for you.
If you had a working mind, you'd realize that the term "settled law" is an oxymoron.
As I've pointed out on several occasions, things like Roe v. Wade are not static (settled) but are constantly in flux.
Please ask those who educated you for a refund.
It's not the law, dumbass, what cannot be established is religion.There is nothing in flux about this or RvW, just people trying to skirt the laws with new ones or not obey the law in the first place, like Coach Jesus, who isn't obeying Jesus either.Sweetcheeks, if you had a rational mind you wouldn't be arguing with me about settled American law, from 50 years ago.You are classic example of what happens when schools don't work.
You can't argue.....or you grab what suites you with no logic whatsoever.
I'm the one who isn't going to do your homework for you.
If you had a working mind, you'd realize that the term "settled law" is an oxymoron.
As I've pointed out on several occasions, things like Roe v. Wade are not static (settled) but are constantly in flux.
Please ask those who educated you for a refund.
That law that can't be established.
Got it.
"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.[1]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionReligion is what cannot be established, meaning promoted or sponsored by the state, dumbshit.It wasn't supposed to be, and never should have continued. We are a secular, by law, nation.It was a part of our very first Congress, thus intention was set, whether you like it or not.And it shouldn't be. There was a big fight about that, long ago.
The law that can't be established...got it.
Read the 1st amendement.
It says nothing about establishing religion.
It says no laws can be passed regarding it's establisment.
Looking for that argument.....
I'd really be looking for that refund if I was you.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding that as a State or Federal employee, you cannot promote, or be seen as promoting, religion?It's not the law, dumbass, what cannot be established is religion.There is nothing in flux about this or RvW, just people trying to skirt the laws with new ones or not obey the law in the first place, like Coach Jesus, who isn't obeying Jesus either.Sweetcheeks, if you had a rational mind you wouldn't be arguing with me about settled American law, from 50 years ago.
If you had a working mind, you'd realize that the term "settled law" is an oxymoron.
As I've pointed out on several occasions, things like Roe v. Wade are not static (settled) but are constantly in flux.
Please ask those who educated you for a refund.
That law that can't be established.
Got it.
Still haven't read what you appealed to in your lame argument ?
I don't need to make an argument. Everyone but you knows what it is. The State cannot promote religion. It must, by law, remain neutral. That is what protects religious freedom here.I don't have to make an argument that the Supreme Court found perfectly valid, in 1963.He doesn't get paid to pray to his god on our time. He was already told to knock it off, and he refuses. See ya, coach...I'd suggest someone look up Lee v Weisman, 1992
" In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Lee the Court developed the coercion test. Under this test the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or (2) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will."
The coach coerced NO ONE to join him in his prayer after the game.
If his attorney is bright enough to use this as a defense, the coach wins.
Insubordination is defined and legitimate cause for discipline.
Better argument than the first amendment, which is not an argument (that you've been able to make).
Correction: You can't make an argument.
"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.[1]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionReligion is what cannot be established, meaning promoted or sponsored by the state, dumbshit.It wasn't supposed to be, and never should have continued. We are a secular, by law, nation.It was a part of our very first Congress, thus intention was set, whether you like it or not.
The law that can't be established...got it.
Read the 1st amendement.
It says nothing about establishing religion.
It says no laws can be passed regarding it's establisment.
Looking for that argument.....
I'd really be looking for that refund if I was you.
I don't need to make an argument. Everyone but you knows what it is. The State cannot promote religion. It must, by law, remain neutral. That is what protects religious freedom here.I don't have to make an argument that the Supreme Court found perfectly valid, in 1963.He doesn't get paid to pray to his god on our time. He was already told to knock it off, and he refuses. See ya, coach...I'd suggest someone look up Lee v Weisman, 1992
" In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Lee the Court developed the coercion test. Under this test the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or (2) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will."
The coach coerced NO ONE to join him in his prayer after the game.
If his attorney is bright enough to use this as a defense, the coach wins.
Insubordination is defined and legitimate cause for discipline.
Better argument than the first amendment, which is not an argument (that you've been able to make).
Correction: You can't make an argument.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding that as a State or Federal employee, you cannot promote, or be seen as promoting, religion?It's not the law, dumbass, what cannot be established is religion.There is nothing in flux about this or RvW, just people trying to skirt the laws with new ones or not obey the law in the first place, like Coach Jesus, who isn't obeying Jesus either.If you had a working mind, you'd realize that the term "settled law" is an oxymoron.
As I've pointed out on several occasions, things like Roe v. Wade are not static (settled) but are constantly in flux.
Please ask those who educated you for a refund.
That law that can't be established.
Got it.
Still haven't read what you appealed to in your lame argument ?
Religion and Public Schools
"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.[1]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionReligion is what cannot be established, meaning promoted or sponsored by the state, dumbshit.It wasn't supposed to be, and never should have continued. We are a secular, by law, nation.It was a part of our very first Congress, thus intention was set, whether you like it or not.
The law that can't be established...got it.
Read the 1st amendement.
It says nothing about establishing religion.
It says no laws can be passed regarding it's establisment.
Looking for that argument.....
I'd really be looking for that refund if I was you.
The Supreme Court fixed that. The Constitution applies at both the Federal and the State level."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.[1]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionReligion is what cannot be established, meaning promoted or sponsored by the state, dumbshit.It wasn't supposed to be, and never should have continued. We are a secular, by law, nation.
The law that can't be established...got it.
Read the 1st amendement.
It says nothing about establishing religion.
It says no laws can be passed regarding it's establisment.
Looking for that argument.....
I'd really be looking for that refund if I was you.
Ya do know you highlighted "Congress" it says nothing about state legistratures....
