'Evil little thing' or defender of the constitution?

[bodecea]

They sure like to pretend that this girl pulled this off all by herself and that a court didn't weigh the case along with constitutional standards.

The courts have been doing this kind of crap for years.

Why we keep letting them do it is the real question.

Of course. You know so much more about constitutional law.

 

[JoeB131]

It was a unanimous ruling, the school broke the law.

I'm with the girl on this one, the school was setting an example to everyone that breaking the law is ok as long as enough people agree with it. There is also the bit about religion has absolutely no place in education.

Speaking as an lasped Catholic who still has the occassional nightmare about the crazy nun 40 years later, bullshit.

The CHurches do a better job educating kids than the government does on its best day. The sooner we get government out of the education business, the better.

I frankly have never accepted this notion that the First Amendment is about getting all mentions of religion out of public life. It was meant to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This prayer wasn't anything close to that. In fact, it was kind of banal.

I know for a fact that religious education isn't an education. Preaching is not teaching.

Depends on what you mean by an education, doesn't it.

There's a whole lot of liberal indoctrination that goes on in Public Schools that really hasn't got much to do with education, either. But you all don't complain about that.

Difference is, after 12 years of Catholic education, I was able to read, write, do math, understand science and know history at a level where I was able to enter college and get a pretty solid score on my ASVAB test that qualified me for nearly any MOS that Army had.

I can't say the same for my contemporaries that were products of Chicago Public Schools.

 

[JoeB131]

They sure like to pretend that this girl pulled this off all by herself and that a court didn't weigh the case along with constitutional standards.

The courts have been doing this kind of crap for years.

Why we keep letting them do it is the real question.

Of course. You know so much more about constitutional law.

I think that one little whiny malcontent screwing it up for the whole community doesn't make a lick of sense.

But the courts have to play their little games.

 

[Utilitarian]

To me this goes beyond the intent of the founding fathers. Articles of religion like the ten commandments on courthouses and this prayer (although being 8 feet high is a little overboard) do not infringe on that separation. If the people of this country want to bar all religious symbols from government property start with the currency!!

Is this separation of state and religion? If it is then what is a prayer hanging on a wall. She says it makes her feel like she does not belong. Perhaps the money should make her feel that she does not belong in America?

This is technically correct. If I'm not mistaken, currency originally had "Mind your business" on it. "In God We Trust" was not added until later.

 

[bodecea]

The courts have been doing this kind of crap for years.

Why we keep letting them do it is the real question.

Of course. You know so much more about constitutional law.

I think that one little whiny malcontent screwing it up for the whole community doesn't make a lick of sense.

But the courts have to play their little games.

So. Majority rules in constitution matters? Is that what you think?

 

[JoeB131]

Of course. You know so much more about constitutional law.

I think that one little whiny malcontent screwing it up for the whole community doesn't make a lick of sense.

But the courts have to play their little games.

So. Majority rules in constitution matters? Is that what you think?

Uh, yeah, actually, I do.

 

[bodecea]

I think that one little whiny malcontent screwing it up for the whole community doesn't make a lick of sense.

But the courts have to play their little games.

So. Majority rules in constitution matters? Is that what you think?

Uh, yeah, actually, I do.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

I think this girl's going to have serious problems in life when she finds that she can't always get her way on things. This was a terrible message to send, really.

Well, maybe the hatred of her whole community might be a life lesson for her. There's that. Too bad the grown-ups didn't step in and say, "You're a kid. Get back to me when you know better."

It was a unanimous ruling, the school broke the law.

I'm with the girl on this one, the school was setting an example to everyone that breaking the law is ok as long as enough people agree with it. There is also the bit about religion has absolutely no place in education.

They sure like to pretend that this girl pulled this off all by herself and that a court didn't weigh the case along with constitutional standards.

To bad the courts don't follow the constitution the way it was actually intended. But what do you expect from left leaning liberal tools.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The CHurches do a better job educating kids than the government does on its best day. The sooner we get government out of the education business, the better.

That’s a gross overgeneralization and not entirely accurate.

According to a University of Illinois study, Charter, Private, Public Schools and Academic Achievement, "after accounting for the fact that private schools serve more advantaged populations, public schools perform remarkably well, often outscoring private and charter schools."

http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP111.pdf

I frankly have never accepted this notion that the First Amendment is about getting all mentions of religion out of public life.

No one ever said it did.

It was meant to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This prayer wasn't anything close to that. In fact, it was kind of banal.

In your opinion.

However seemingly ‘banal,’ innocuous, or otherwise inadvertent, government endorsement of religion is still in violation of the Establishment Clause. Indeed, one of the first and most effective means by which the government might establish a state religion is to require prayer in its public schools.

There is no ‘severity requirement’ with regard to violations of the Constitution, a citizen is not required to wait to see if an act by the state results in the creation of an actual state religion where those not members of that faith are subject to persecution by the state, before he may file a complaint in Federal court.

To bad the courts don't follow the constitution the way it was actually intended.

If not the courts, then by what authority will the Constitution be interpreted?

Even your ‘minimalist’ perception of the Constitution is an interpretation.

But what do you expect from left leaning liberal tools.

Justice Scalia is a ‘left leaning liberal tool’?

 

[bodecea]

It was a unanimous ruling, the school broke the law.

I'm with the girl on this one, the school was setting an example to everyone that breaking the law is ok as long as enough people agree with it. There is also the bit about religion has absolutely no place in education.

They sure like to pretend that this girl pulled this off all by herself and that a court didn't weigh the case along with constitutional standards.

To bad the courts don't follow the constitution the way it was actually intended. But what do you expect from left leaning liberal tools.

What part of the Constitutional Law you are so expert on have the judges made an error in?

Cite Constitutional law and SCOTUS decisions to back your explanation.

 

[JoeB131]

Clayton, I like responding to some of your thoughts, but it is very disconcerting when you respond to the comments by several different posters without attribution in the same response.