The creationists are BACK

[geauxtohell]

The judge is wrong.

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore a judicial ruling because you disagree with their legal opinion.

This student will not only break the law as it applies to public prayer, she will break the law as it pertains to following a judicial order.

I'll have no sympathy for her when the axe falls. I might be somewhat sympathetic if she had done this first and then gotten in trouble, but the fact is she has already gotten a ruling on the matter. She simply chooses to ignore it.

No one is being forced to pray along.

That is not the way the court saw it. Asking the assembly to bow their heads and pray is seen as a tacit endorsement of religion.

This is far beyond "I want to thank God, my parents, etc...".

 

[Jack Fate]

This child doesnt and should get the ability to coerce others into listening to her prayer.

When I drive down the Avenue and the sign on the porn shop is flashing "Glow in the dark dildos", can I claim they are coercing me and my children to use dildos?

 

[Dr.Drock]

This child doesnt and should get the ability to coerce others into listening to her prayer.

When I drive down the Avenue and the sign on the porn shop is flashing "Glow in the dark dildos", can I claim they are coercing me and my children to use dildos?

Yes you can, a private business is supposed to try to coerce you into using their product/service.

A private church can try to coerce people into becoming believers.

A public, government involved forum isn't supposed to try to coerce you into practicing a particular religion or any religion-based act.

She should pray if she wants to, that's great, do it from your chair before or after you address the group. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[geauxtohell]

This child doesnt and should get the ability to coerce others into listening to her prayer.

When I drive down the Avenue and the sign on the porn shop is flashing "Glow in the dark dildos", can I claim they are coercing me and my children to use dildos?

Is there a special clause in the constitution regarding sex toys?

Apples and footballs.

Your municipality has latitude to enforce decency laws to cover such matters.

 

[AllieBaba]

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
Texas valedictorian vows to pray in her graduation speech, despite judge's order | khou.com Houston

I thought you respected the laws?

If this young woman chooses to thumb her nose at a Federal Judge's ruling that was specifically against her, I have no sympathy for the consequences she faces.

If this were any other issue, no one would support a person intentionally ignoring a legal ruling that was not in her favor.

Somehow, it's supposed to all be different because religion is involved?

Biery’s order, released Tuesday, was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz on behalf of their son, Corwin, to block use of prayer. The judge says speakers cannot call on audience members to bow their heads, join in prayer or say "amen."

Texas judge: No prayer at high school graduation | khou.com Houston

Once again, the issue isn't that this student wants to exercise her religion privately, but rather she wants to lead the whole assembly in prayer.

The judge is wrong.

No one is being forced to pray along.

How is reciting a prayer establishing religion?

If it isn't, and if that is not the motive, and if people are not being punished for not participating, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's no more a violation of the constitution than shaving one's legs and wearing a skirt.

 

[Contumacious]

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore a judicial ruling because you disagree with their legal opinion.

.".

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore the Constitution (1787) because you disagree with the proviso.

.

 

[geauxtohell]

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore a judicial ruling because you disagree with their legal opinion.

.".

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore the Constitution (1787) because you disagree with the proviso.

.

Then perhaps you should take it up with the judge who made the ruling. As it stands, the same basic rules for living in a nation of laws apply. You don't get to ignore legal rulings you disagree with. That defeats the purpose of having a judiciary.

 

[geauxtohell]

Should a student be permitted to stand up at graduation start chanting the Adhan, the Muslim call to prayer?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlLaUCAQlQQ]YouTube - ‪Adhan - Islamic call to prayer‬‏[/ame]

Because that is equally illegal/egregious in my book.

 

[geauxtohell]

How is reciting a prayer establishing religion?

Reciting a prayer is not. Standing up at a public school event and attempting to lead the assembly in prayer is.

You can look up the relevant case law for the legalities.

All that is aside though, the judge has ruled on this issue. If you respect the rule of law, then you can't support this young woman ignoring a Federal Judge's ruling.

 

[Jack Fate]

The judge is wrong.

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore a judicial ruling because you disagree with their legal opinion.

This student will not only break the law as it applies to public prayer, she will break the law as it pertains to following a judicial order.

I'll have no sympathy for her when the axe falls. I might be somewhat sympathetic if she had done this first and then gotten in trouble, but the fact is she has already gotten a ruling on the matter. She simply chooses to ignore it.

No one is being forced to pray along.

That is not the way the court saw it. Asking the assembly to bow their heads and pray is seen as a tacit endorsement of religion.

This is far beyond "I want to thank God, my parents, etc...".

She should ignore it. If it were not for civil disobedience, where would the civil rights movement have been? There are times when civil disobedience is encouraged and this would be one of them because her constitutional rights are being denied. The left is all about "rights" until they cross their imagainary line that only they can determine the limits of.

 

[Jack Fate]

This child doesnt and should get the ability to coerce others into listening to her prayer.

When I drive down the Avenue and the sign on the porn shop is flashing "Glow in the dark dildos", can I claim they are coercing me and my children to use dildos?

Is there a special clause in the constitution regarding sex toys?

Apples and footballs.

Your municipality has latitude to enforce decency laws to cover such matters.

As they should when it comes to speaking at graduation. Fair is fair.

 

[Jack Fate]

How is reciting a prayer establishing religion?

Reciting a prayer is not. Standing up at a public school event and attempting to lead the assembly in prayer is.

You can look up the relevant case law for the legalities.

All that is aside though, the judge has ruled on this issue. If you respect the rule of law, then you can't support this young woman ignoring a Federal Judge's ruling.

"The rule of law" is a funny thing. A lot of Germans followed "the rule of law". That statement means nothing if the law is unconstitutional and I believe this is. I would encourage civil disobedience and take it all the way to the USSC.

 

[geauxtohell]

When I drive down the Avenue and the sign on the porn shop is flashing "Glow in the dark dildos", can I claim they are coercing me and my children to use dildos?

Is there a special clause in the constitution regarding sex toys?

Apples and footballs.

Your municipality has latitude to enforce decency laws to cover such matters.

As they should when it comes to speaking at graduation. Fair is fair.

Uh, no. Religion is a distinctly constitutional issue. The same laws that ensure that your own right to practice your religion are not infringed upon (which I am assuming is true as you haven't been able to give an example of being deprived of your religious freedoms) also protect others from being compelled to participate in another person's religion.

The founding fathers, who you love to reference, put that in there.

It's a double edged sword.

 

[geauxtohell]

The judge is wrong.

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore a judicial ruling because you disagree with their legal opinion.

This student will not only break the law as it applies to public prayer, she will break the law as it pertains to following a judicial order.

I'll have no sympathy for her when the axe falls. I might be somewhat sympathetic if she had done this first and then gotten in trouble, but the fact is she has already gotten a ruling on the matter. She simply chooses to ignore it.

No one is being forced to pray along.

That is not the way the court saw it. Asking the assembly to bow their heads and pray is seen as a tacit endorsement of religion.

This is far beyond "I want to thank God, my parents, etc...".

She should ignore it. If it were not for civil disobedience, where would the civil rights movement have been? There are times when civil disobedience is encouraged and this would be one of them because her constitutional rights are being denied. The left is all about "rights" until they cross their imagainary line that only they can determine the limits of.

I would agree that disobeying the ruling is an act of non-violent civil disobedience. I would also agree that she assumes legal risk when she does so. She might ultimately appeal her decision as high as it can go.

However, in the end, the law will prevail. Even if it's inconvenient.

As has been determined over and over in every level of the judiciary, her right to religion doesn't entail her to attempt to lead others in prayer at a public school.

 

[geauxtohell]

Once again: If a Christian Student can call her classmates to prayer in a public school, can a Muslim student call his/her classmates to prayer in a public school?

 

[BlindBoo]

The judge is wrong.

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore a judicial ruling because you disagree with their legal opinion.

This student will not only break the law as it applies to public prayer, she will break the law as it pertains to following a judicial order.

I'll have no sympathy for her when the axe falls. I might be somewhat sympathetic if she had done this first and then gotten in trouble, but the fact is she has already gotten a ruling on the matter. She simply chooses to ignore it.

No one is being forced to pray along.

That is not the way the court saw it. Asking the assembly to bow their heads and pray is seen as a tacit endorsement of religion.

This is far beyond "I want to thank God, my parents, etc...".

She should ignore it. If it were not for civil disobedience, where would the civil rights movement have been? There are times when civil disobedience is encouraged and this would be one of them because her constitutional rights are being denied. The left is all about "rights" until they cross their imagainary line that only they can determine the limits of.

Uh-oh and fuck me, I agree with Jack. If she is willing to face the consequences of civil disobedience then she should ignore it. However in this case I believe the ruling was overturned and she was able to give her desired speech.

Oh I've been to two graduations this year and each one mentioned God and thanked God....ect. Much to my amazement my head did not explode and I was able to function normally the entire day.

 

[Contumacious]

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore a judicial ruling because you disagree with their legal opinion.

.".

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore the Constitution (1787) because you disagree with the proviso.

.

Then perhaps you should take it up with the judge who made the ruling. As it stands, the same basic rules for living in a nation of laws apply. You don't get to ignore legal rulings you disagree with. That defeats the purpose of having a judiciary.

Man, where the fuck have you been?

There is no federal judiciary.

Article III Courts were abolished circa 1935.

It began when an SCOTUS majority decided to censor , suppress, Justice James Clark McReynolds dissenting opinion in the "Gold Clause cases".

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So Congress can not make a law that respects one religion over another?
Congress passed Christmas as a national Holiday in 1870 and Our President Ulysses S. Grant singed it into law.
Jesus is the reason for the Holiday.
It has always been an all inclusive holiday but the left secularists are trying to get the very name of out, by trying to rename it Happy Holidays instead of Christmas.
We have God in our pledge of allegiance, God in our coin and paper money,prayer before each session of or house, senate and supreme court.
No where in our Constitution does it say separation of church and state.

That is correct. There is no "separation of Church and State"
The Freedom of religion clause reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
The Left has taken freedom of religion for their own closed minded reasons changed it into freedom FROM religion.
Now we see that is no longer true. Liberals are now using political correctness to exclude the Christian Religion.

 

[geauxtohell]

No where in our legal system is it permitted to ignore the Constitution (1787) because you disagree with the proviso.

.

Then perhaps you should take it up with the judge who made the ruling. As it stands, the same basic rules for living in a nation of laws apply. You don't get to ignore legal rulings you disagree with. That defeats the purpose of having a judiciary.

Man, where the fuck have you been?

There is no federal judiciary.

Article III Courts were abolished circa 1935.

It began when an SCOTUS majority decided to censor , suppress, Justice James Clark McReynolds dissenting opinion in the "Gold Clause cases".

.

Webpage under the title "Federal Judiciary"

United States Courts

Sorry to burst your bubble, we actually do have a federal court system.

 

[geauxtohell]

So Congress can not make a law that respects one religion over another?
Congress passed Christmas as a national Holiday in 1870 and Our President Ulysses S. Grant singed it into law.
Jesus is the reason for the Holiday.
It has always been an all inclusive holiday but the left secularists are trying to get the very name of out, by trying to rename it Happy Holidays instead of Christmas.
We have God in our pledge of allegiance, God in our coin and paper money,prayer before each session of or house, senate and supreme court.
No where in our Constitution does it say separation of church and state.

That is correct. There is no "separation of Church and State"
The Freedom of religion clause reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
The Left has taken freedom of religion for their own closed minded reasons changed it into freedom FROM religion.
Now we see that is no longer true. Liberals are now using political correctness to exclude the Christian Religion.

Can a Muslim student call to prayer on the podium of their graduation ceremony?