Graduation Prayer and Legal Precedence

[thereisnospoon]

The establishment clause is a federal mandate and has supremacy over "community standards".

That is true but not accurate.
Example...In a small town near here the government opened every town meeting with a short payer. This has been done for many many years in this town and was more traditional than secular.
A few years ago, a woman who claimed to be a worshiper of a Wiccan sect attended a council meeting and when exposed to the prayer decided to hire an attorney. She filed suit claiming the town violated ( here we go again) the "separation of Church and State".
The town had a great defense but decided to not fight it due to budgetary issues. The attorney representing the plaintiff handled the case pro bono.
Fast forward to today...The town of Great Falls, SC still opens their meeting with a prayer but keeps the prayer non denominational.
At the end of the day, we get to run our lives the way we want so as long as we bring no harm to others.
There are those who like to say things such as "federal mandate and has supremacy over "community standards", to make themselves feel better.
That's ok. The procedure by which one must lodge a complaint leaves so much lag time, the process of government intervention is really quite useless.
Once again, we're talking about liberty life and the pursuit of happiness vs a person who sees things differently in the realm of religion who has a bone to pick.
People in general are sick of complaining whining "special needs" people who at the slightest inconvenience run to the courts which then rule in favor of the lowest common denominator.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. The masses need not suffer but for the actions or desires of a few.

We say that the establishment clause has precedence over community standards because that is a factual statement.

By reading your post: basically the communities who still adhere to their community standards do so because they haven't been challenged yet. The ones that do, fold.

A purely utilitarian view point "the needs of the many" is not carte blanche to violate someone's constitutional rights.

The "needs of the many" has been used in the past to justify things like segregation.

Again, the issue is that we are a nation of laws.

Fine. However, in this case no one was harmed. Hence the reason why the original ruling was overturned.
You cannot produce a single piece of evidence that connects the needs of the may to racial segregation.
That is a different issue. If you wish to argue it, I welcome you to start a thread on that subject.
No one's constitutional rights were violated here. This hullabaloo was based on a complaint by ONE person who was basically pissed off because his kid's pristine ears would be subjected to name of the Lord.
What is your goal here? Is it the total ban of religion from public view? If not, what?
Instead of digging your heels in and insisting how things should be from your point of view,how about solutions?
We must cast aside our sensitivity to annoyance.
There is a difference between inconvenience and violation of civil rights.
This case is about one person being inconvenienced.

 

[geauxtohell]

Fine. However, in this case no one was harmed. Hence the reason why the original ruling was overturned.

Someone doesn't need to be hit over the head with a 2X4 to be "harmed". That's also wasn't why the case was overturned.

You cannot produce a single piece of evidence that connects the needs of the may to racial segregation.

Sure I can. Preservation of the status quo was a common argument to preserve Jim Crow.

Again, our laws are inspired by a utilitarian thinkers like Locke, but utilitarianism is not the guiding principle of our country. Especially when it comes to civil liberties and free speech, where the goal is to protect the minority and often un-popular view.

A strict utilitarian ("the needs of the many") mentality would call for wealth redistribution so that everyone had an equal amount of money.

I would venture to guess you wouldn't support that.

That is a different issue. If you wish to argue it, I welcome you to start a thread on that subject.

It's not a different issue. I have started a thread on it.

No one's constitutional rights were violated here.

That's debatable. It certainly wasn't the viewpoint of the first federal judge.

This hullabaloo was based on a complaint by ONE person who was basically pissed off because his kid's pristine ears would be subjected to name of the Lord.

Again, what difference does it make whether it's one or 1 million when the constitution is involved? You guys keep wanted to blame the Schultz and ignore that this was a legitimate constitutional issue.

What is your goal here?

To discuss this issue on a message board.

Is it the total ban of religion from public view? If not, what?
Instead of digging your heels in and insisting how things should be from your point of view,how about solutions?
We must cast aside our sensitivity to annoyance.
There is a difference between inconvenience and violation of civil rights.
This case is about one person being inconvenienced.

Did you even bother to read my OP?

I only ask because I made my views pretty clear in it.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's where you are wrong. At a certain point contemporary community standards will take precedent.
People of a community demand a certain way of life. They think alike. They act alike. Their kids play together, go to school together. This is what makes a community. People work hard to find these zones of comfort and security. They help each other.
IN light of that, these people are entitled by God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No government can take that away. The Founding Fathers saw to that.
To that end, if a community wishes to include or exclude, as long as their is no harm, they have that right. So if a community objects to the celebration of something as evil as satan, that is their right. If the people who wish Satan to be worshiped feel that strongly , they can seek relief from the courts. Even then let's say a judge who thinks the Establishment clause was written in Sanskrit decides Satan worship to be a religion, rules in favor of allowing a prayer to Satan, that does not mean the community will allow it.
It is our right as citizens to demonstrate civil disobedience when we believe collectively that a law or judges ruling is unjust.

The community may not allow it but the LAW must. Funny thing about the law, it does not just protect your freedoms. It protects ALL our freedoms. If the school is all right with prayer in the speech, a policy that I would agree with, then they must allow any form of prayer. I would agree that offensive and derogatory items can and should be controlled and a prayer to Satanism quite likely has those elements and could be prevented from that angle but no if it were not derogatory. The most important time to protect people’s rights is when they disagree with you.

Interesting you should put it that way. This agnostic person is using his rights to subvert the rights of a great many people. And for what purpose other than to prove a point? Nothing. All this guy did was cause a great deal of angst for an entire community. For what? HIS comfort? Please.
Once again, we as citizens have the right to civil disobedience if we believe a law to be unjust. At the end of the day who is being harmed by the prayer? It's just a few words to bring comfort to the individuals who wish to hear them. Is the agnostic person being harmed? NO. That's why the original ruling was overturned. The agnostic failed to prove he or his son was being harmed.

? Was I not clear ? I agreed with overturning the ruling as I agree with the right of the girl to make a religious statement that was not derogatory, threatening or in some other way against the rules of the speech. What I was debating was your addition that the community could somehow have stripped her of that right had they been all Muslims and Christianity offended them. To allow our rights to be subject to the whims of the majority in religion is asinine and not what this country is based upon. In the last post, we were using Satanism to express the case, see how it changes the ballgame when we put Christianity up there instead. Again, LAW must be equal and protect all views.

 

[Againsheila]

As has been noted on here, a federal appeals court has reversed a federal judge's opinion that a young woman named Angela Hildenbrand could not legally pray on the podium during her graduation ceremony.

Court Lifts Ban On Texas Graduation Prayer : NPR

On June 6th, Hildenbrand delivered her address and prayer:

Lord, I thank you so much for the blessing of this day. And I just thank you for the amazing group of people that you surrounded me with.

God, I thank you for the support of our whole entire community through this case hearing; and also for Erin (Leu)and all the people at the Liberty Institute; and my parents, who’ve helped get me through the last couple of days.

Lord, I just thank you so much for your presence in our lives through these 18 years. And I just praise you for your incredible faithfulness through all adversity and all joy.

God, I thank you for the men and women who have given their lives helping to give us, and protect, the freedoms that we have today. And I ask that you please keep your hand of guidance on all of them — past, present and future military.

God, I thank you just so much for the freedom to be here today. And most of all, I thank you for loving us first.

God, I ask that you please keep each of us safe and well, as we all go our separate ways. And I can’t wait to see where you’ll be leading each of us. I ask that you’ll ask us all to remember where we come from, and to know where we stand.

God, I thank you for the gift of your Son and for the forgiveness that surpasses all understanding. And most of all, I thank you for your great love for us, and for our great nation, where we are free.

And it’s in Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.

Prayer Steals the Show at Texas Graduation | CitizenLink

(A video can also be found at the link).

I disagree, but respect the court's ruling, and I have to admire this young woman for fighting for something she felt was right.

However, now that this precedent has been set and the legality of the matter is not in dispute, would you accept a Muslim student calling their classmates to prayer at the podium of their graduation?

If not, how (in your opinion) is it different?

I started a separate thread on this after noticing that some members of the forum discussing the issue wouldn't answer that simple question.

Hats off to Alliebaba who did.

I have no problem with a muslim prayer at graduation, as long as it's tasteful, just as that Christian prayer was. (ie...no jihads, etc.) Same goes for all other religions.

 

[geauxtohell]

As has been noted on here, a federal appeals court has reversed a federal judge's opinion that a young woman named Angela Hildenbrand could not legally pray on the podium during her graduation ceremony.

Court Lifts Ban On Texas Graduation Prayer : NPR

On June 6th, Hildenbrand delivered her address and prayer:

Lord, I thank you so much for the blessing of this day. And I just thank you for the amazing group of people that you surrounded me with.

God, I thank you for the support of our whole entire community through this case hearing; and also for Erin (Leu)and all the people at the Liberty Institute; and my parents, who’ve helped get me through the last couple of days.

Lord, I just thank you so much for your presence in our lives through these 18 years. And I just praise you for your incredible faithfulness through all adversity and all joy.

God, I thank you for the men and women who have given their lives helping to give us, and protect, the freedoms that we have today. And I ask that you please keep your hand of guidance on all of them — past, present and future military.

God, I thank you just so much for the freedom to be here today. And most of all, I thank you for loving us first.

God, I ask that you please keep each of us safe and well, as we all go our separate ways. And I can’t wait to see where you’ll be leading each of us. I ask that you’ll ask us all to remember where we come from, and to know where we stand.

God, I thank you for the gift of your Son and for the forgiveness that surpasses all understanding. And most of all, I thank you for your great love for us, and for our great nation, where we are free.

And it’s in Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.

Prayer Steals the Show at Texas Graduation | CitizenLink

(A video can also be found at the link).

I disagree, but respect the court's ruling, and I have to admire this young woman for fighting for something she felt was right.

However, now that this precedent has been set and the legality of the matter is not in dispute, would you accept a Muslim student calling their classmates to prayer at the podium of their graduation?

If not, how (in your opinion) is it different?

I started a separate thread on this after noticing that some members of the forum discussing the issue wouldn't answer that simple question.

Hats off to Alliebaba who did.

I have no problem with a muslim prayer at graduation, as long as it's tasteful, just as that Christian prayer was. (ie...no jihads, etc.) Same goes for all other religions.

Thanks.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Fine. However, in this case no one was harmed. Hence the reason why the original ruling was overturned.

Someone doesn't need to be hit over the head with a 2X4 to be "harmed". That's also wasn't why the case was overturned.

You cannot produce a single piece of evidence that connects the needs of the may to racial segregation.

Sure I can. Preservation of the status quo was a common argument to preserve Jim Crow.

Again, our laws are inspired by a utilitarian thinkers like Locke, but utilitarianism is not the guiding principle of our country. Especially when it comes to civil liberties and free speech, where the goal is to protect the minority and often un-popular view.

It got attention because some members of the media with a left leaning bias took the story and ran with it. Rather than just reporting the news

A strict utilitarian ("the needs of the many") mentality would call for wealth redistribution so that everyone had an equal amount of money.

I would venture to guess you wouldn't support that.



It's not a different issue. I have started a thread on it.



That's debatable. It certainly wasn't the viewpoint of the first federal judge.



Again, what difference does it make whether it's one or 1 million when the constitution is involved? You guys keep wanted to blame the Schultz and ignore that this was a legitimate constitutional issue.

What is your goal here?

To discuss this issue on a message board.

Is it the total ban of religion from public view? If not, what?
Instead of digging your heels in and insisting how things should be from your point of view,how about solutions?
We must cast aside our sensitivity to annoyance.
There is a difference between inconvenience and violation of civil rights.
This case is about one person being inconvenienced.

Did you even bother to read my OP?

I only ask because I made my views pretty clear in it.

That's not evidence. That's an opinion...( Jim Crow) BTW, every time an issue of precedent is discussed, invariably, the Jim Crow card is played. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
You're arguing just to argue. And you're losing.

This incident and the following case was based on a complaint. Not a constitutional question. A complaint alleging the son's anti religious beliefs were being violated. Isn't that ironic. An agnostic uses freedom of religion( the establishment clause) as a means to squash another person's freedom of religion.
One more thing...Federal judges are not paid to issue rulings based on viewpoints. They are paid to be impartial arbiters of the Law.

 

[geauxtohell]

That's not evidence. That's an opinion...( Jim Crow) BTW, every time an issue of precedent is discussed, invariably, the Jim Crow card is played. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
You're arguing just to argue. And you're losing.

The counter racism card! It would almost work if I accused you of being a racist. I haven't.

If you don't think "community norms" were an argument made against Jim Crow, I don't know what to tell you other then "take a history class". They called the Freedom Riders "outside agitators" for a reason.

I am not saying you are for Jim Crow (just to straighten this out), just making an example that "majority rules" isn't always right. This was a well known fact to the founders, which is why we have a bill of rights.

The First Amendment offers everyone protection, to include the Westboro Baptist Church, which just won a lawsuit allowing them to continue to spew their vile hatred regardless of what the community thinks.

This is relevant only because you claim that community standards are relevant.

This incident and the following case was based on a complaint. Not a constitutional question.

You are wrong, and I can quantify it. This case was heard immediately at the federal level. Why? Because it involved a constitutional question: separation of church and state.

A complaint alleging the son's anti religious beliefs were being violated. Isn't that ironic. An agnostic uses freedom of religion( the establishment clause) as a means to squash another person's freedom of religion.

No really if you understand the ESTABLISHMENT clause.

One more thing...Federal judges are not paid to issue rulings based on viewpoints. They are paid to be impartial arbiters of the Law.

No doubt. I have never impugned any of the justices involved. Even the ones that made rulings I disagree with. That's more than I can say for some other posters on here.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's not evidence. That's an opinion...( Jim Crow) BTW, every time an issue of precedent is discussed, invariably, the Jim Crow card is played. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
You're arguing just to argue. And you're losing.

The counter racism card! It would almost work if I accused you of being a racist. I haven't.

If you don't think "community norms" were an argument made against Jim Crow, I don't know what to tell you other then "take a history class". They called the Freedom Riders "outside agitators" for a reason.

I am not saying you are for Jim Crow (just to straighten this out), just making an example that "majority rules" isn't always right. This was a well known fact to the founders, which is why we have a bill of rights.

The First Amendment offers everyone protection, to include the Westboro Baptist Church, which just won a lawsuit allowing them to continue to spew their vile hatred regardless of what the community thinks.

This is relevant only because you claim that community standards are relevant.

This incident and the following case was based on a complaint. Not a constitutional question.

You are wrong, and I can quantify it. This case was heard immediately at the federal level. Why? Because it involved a constitutional question: separation of church and state.

A complaint alleging the son's anti religious beliefs were being violated. Isn't that ironic. An agnostic uses freedom of religion( the establishment clause) as a means to squash another person's freedom of religion.

No really if you understand the ESTABLISHMENT clause.

One more thing...Federal judges are not paid to issue rulings based on viewpoints. They are paid to be impartial arbiters of the Law.

No doubt. I have never impugned any of the justices involved. Even the ones that made rulings I disagree with. That's more than I can say for some other posters on here.

One more time....Please read carefully. There is no "separation of Church and State" in the US Constitution.....
The establishment clause reads "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Those with other agendas have twisted the Establishment clause into something it is not and was never intended to be. The Founding Fathers placed the EC in the first Amendment as a reminder of why the English fled their homeland in the first place. They wanted to practice their religion and belong to the church of their choice. That's all.
On Westboro....Here's a perfect example of what is meant by contemporary community standards being the rule.
Several states including NC are proposing laws that would set a buffer between military funerals and all protesters. The NC proposal is 1000 feet.
So while the federal courts have ruled the Westboro people have a right to their opinion, the states have a right to find that opinion to be unacceptable.
There are 7 or so other states which have already reacted and passed buffer laws.
No one is being harmed here. The Westboro people can spew their filth. The mourners get to do what they need to do as well. So far no challenges have been brought against any of the State's buffer laws.
It if were up to me I'd make a half a mile. But that's pushing it a bit.

 

[manifold]

What do these three have in common?

A. The family that sued in this story
B. The lesbians that sued the photographer that didn't want to do their wedding
C. The hordes of fundies that lit up NBC's phone lines after they omitted 'under God' from the pledge

They are all hypersensitive douchewagons who obviously take for granted how good they have it in this country.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[martybegan]

What do these three have in common?

A. The family that sued in this story
B. The lesbians that sued the photographer that didn't want to do their wedding
C. The hordes of fundies that lit up NBC's phone lines after they omitted 'under God' from the pledge

They are all hypersensitive douchewagons who obviously take for granted how good they have it in this country.

But whatcha gonna do?

My only quibble is that the first two invovled people going through with the effort of suing. The 3rd involves making an angry telephone call, which requires far less effort.

I do agree in part, (with my dissent in part noted above) that all the people are indeed, a bit hypersenstitve, with my subsititon of asshat for douchewagon.

( I think I am reading too many supreme court opinions)

 

[thereisnospoon]

As has been noted on here, a federal appeals court has reversed a federal judge's opinion that a young woman named Angela Hildenbrand could not legally pray on the podium during her graduation ceremony.

Court Lifts Ban On Texas Graduation Prayer : NPR

On June 6th, Hildenbrand delivered her address and prayer:

Lord, I thank you so much for the blessing of this day. And I just thank you for the amazing group of people that you surrounded me with.

God, I thank you for the support of our whole entire community through this case hearing; and also for Erin (Leu)and all the people at the Liberty Institute; and my parents, who’ve helped get me through the last couple of days.

Lord, I just thank you so much for your presence in our lives through these 18 years. And I just praise you for your incredible faithfulness through all adversity and all joy.

God, I thank you for the men and women who have given their lives helping to give us, and protect, the freedoms that we have today. And I ask that you please keep your hand of guidance on all of them — past, present and future military.

God, I thank you just so much for the freedom to be here today. And most of all, I thank you for loving us first.

God, I ask that you please keep each of us safe and well, as we all go our separate ways. And I can’t wait to see where you’ll be leading each of us. I ask that you’ll ask us all to remember where we come from, and to know where we stand.

God, I thank you for the gift of your Son and for the forgiveness that surpasses all understanding. And most of all, I thank you for your great love for us, and for our great nation, where we are free.

And it’s in Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.

Prayer Steals the Show at Texas Graduation | CitizenLink

(A video can also be found at the link).

I disagree, but respect the court's ruling, and I have to admire this young woman for fighting for something she felt was right.

However, now that this precedent has been set and the legality of the matter is not in dispute, would you accept a Muslim student calling their classmates to prayer at the podium of their graduation?

If not, how (in your opinion) is it different?

I started a separate thread on this after noticing that some members of the forum discussing the issue wouldn't answer that simple question.

Hats off to Alliebaba who did.

I answered your question. You dismissed the answer.
Here it is again.
The Muslim student is free to call the whole school to join her in prayer. It is up to each individual as to answer that call or not.
This is called the freedom to choose as one wishes.
Now here's where it gets into a constitutional issue. If the school had sanctioned and in any way recommended participation.
This question was brought forth a few years ago when a California school district had a middle school "muslim week"...In that students were required to wear Arabic garb to school and choose a Muslim name. Students were required to study about Islam and take an exam. The activity was challenged first to the school board, then in court where both times parents were rebuked. The reason this went forward was given as "educational opportunity" .
Of course that was a load of crap, but hey ,it's California. Where anything goes.
This was clearly a case where the school sanctioned a religious activity. That is is direct violation of the establishment clause.

 

[geauxtohell]

As has been noted on here, a federal appeals court has reversed a federal judge's opinion that a young woman named Angela Hildenbrand could not legally pray on the podium during her graduation ceremony.

Court Lifts Ban On Texas Graduation Prayer : NPR

On June 6th, Hildenbrand delivered her address and prayer:

Lord, I thank you so much for the blessing of this day. And I just thank you for the amazing group of people that you surrounded me with.

God, I thank you for the support of our whole entire community through this case hearing; and also for Erin (Leu)and all the people at the Liberty Institute; and my parents, who’ve helped get me through the last couple of days.

Lord, I just thank you so much for your presence in our lives through these 18 years. And I just praise you for your incredible faithfulness through all adversity and all joy.

God, I thank you for the men and women who have given their lives helping to give us, and protect, the freedoms that we have today. And I ask that you please keep your hand of guidance on all of them — past, present and future military.

God, I thank you just so much for the freedom to be here today. And most of all, I thank you for loving us first.

God, I ask that you please keep each of us safe and well, as we all go our separate ways. And I can’t wait to see where you’ll be leading each of us. I ask that you’ll ask us all to remember where we come from, and to know where we stand.

God, I thank you for the gift of your Son and for the forgiveness that surpasses all understanding. And most of all, I thank you for your great love for us, and for our great nation, where we are free.

And it’s in Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.

Prayer Steals the Show at Texas Graduation | CitizenLink

(A video can also be found at the link).

I disagree, but respect the court's ruling, and I have to admire this young woman for fighting for something she felt was right.

However, now that this precedent has been set and the legality of the matter is not in dispute, would you accept a Muslim student calling their classmates to prayer at the podium of their graduation?

If not, how (in your opinion) is it different?

I started a separate thread on this after noticing that some members of the forum discussing the issue wouldn't answer that simple question.

Hats off to Alliebaba who did.

I answered your question. You dismissed the answer.
Here it is again.
The Muslim student is free to call the whole school to join her in prayer. It is up to each individual as to answer that call or not.
This is called the freedom to choose as one wishes.
Now here's where it gets into a constitutional issue. If the school had sanctioned and in any way recommended participation.
This question was brought forth a few years ago when a California school district had a middle school "muslim week"...In that students were required to wear Arabic garb to school and choose a Muslim name. Students were required to study about Islam and take an exam. The activity was challenged first to the school board, then in court where both times parents were rebuked. The reason this went forward was given as "educational opportunity" .
Of course that was a load of crap, but hey ,it's California. Where anything goes.
This was clearly a case where the school sanctioned a religious activity. That is is direct violation of the establishment clause.

Learning about another culture is not a tacit endorsement of religion. Was prayer even involved?

So you are changing your statement about community standards?

Smart boy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As has been noted on here, a federal appeals court has reversed a federal judge's opinion that a young woman named Angela Hildenbrand could not legally pray on the podium during her graduation ceremony.

Court Lifts Ban On Texas Graduation Prayer : NPR

On June 6th, Hildenbrand delivered her address and prayer:



Prayer Steals the Show at Texas Graduation | CitizenLink

(A video can also be found at the link).

I disagree, but respect the court's ruling, and I have to admire this young woman for fighting for something she felt was right.

However, now that this precedent has been set and the legality of the matter is not in dispute, would you accept a Muslim student calling their classmates to prayer at the podium of their graduation?

If not, how (in your opinion) is it different?

I started a separate thread on this after noticing that some members of the forum discussing the issue wouldn't answer that simple question.

Hats off to Alliebaba who did.

I answered your question. You dismissed the answer.
Here it is again.
The Muslim student is free to call the whole school to join her in prayer. It is up to each individual as to answer that call or not.
This is called the freedom to choose as one wishes.
Now here's where it gets into a constitutional issue. If the school had sanctioned and in any way recommended participation.
This question was brought forth a few years ago when a California school district had a middle school "muslim week"...In that students were required to wear Arabic garb to school and choose a Muslim name. Students were required to study about Islam and take an exam. The activity was challenged first to the school board, then in court where both times parents were rebuked. The reason this went forward was given as "educational opportunity" .
Of course that was a load of crap, but hey ,it's California. Where anything goes.
This was clearly a case where the school sanctioned a religious activity. That is is direct violation of the establishment clause.

Learning about another culture is not a tacit endorsement of religion. Was prayer even involved?

So you are changing your statement about community standards?

Smart boy.

You call it learning. The parents called it a double standard. Had the focus been on the Christian or Jewish faiths, I guarantee the howls of protest from left wing groups would have been heard across the country. So please, don't hand me that bullshit.
I am changing nothing.
Liberal Educrats made the decision to allow this indoctrination.
You stated that rights must apply to all. Who was looking out for the rights of those who believed this "lesson" violated the establishment clause?
Oh, the civil disobedience was in the decision of many parents to hold their children out of school or to opt out of the activity.
Just as parents do so when they object to state sanctioned sex education when in reality, teachers are using their position to impart THEIR morality on the students in place of where that should come from. The children's parents.
Why do you continue to argue? You're not getting anywhere.

 

[geauxtohell]

You call it learning. The parents called it a double standard. Had the focus been on the Christian or Jewish faiths, I guarantee the howls of protest from left wing groups would have been heard across the country. So please, don't hand me that bullshit.
I am changing nothing.
Liberal Educrats made the decision to allow this indoctrination.
You stated that rights must apply to all. Who was looking out for the rights of those who believed this "lesson" violated the establishment clause?
Oh, the civil disobedience was in the decision of many parents to hold their children out of school or to opt out of the activity.
Just as parents do so when they object to state sanctioned sex education when in reality, teachers are using their position to impart THEIR morality on the students in place of where that should come from. The children's parents.
Why do you continue to argue? You're not getting anywhere.

As several people have noted on here, we have no problem with "teaching religion" as it relates to history and culture. You can't really delve into European history while ignoring the Catholic Church. The parents that were too scared to let their kids learn about a culture that influences billions of people on this planet are too stupid to be believed.

That's far different then and endorsement of religion or leading children in prayer. In fact, I'll bet if an Islamic prayer was made during the lesson plan, Sean Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the fucktards would be shitting a brick.

So it's apples and footballs.

You keep asking me why I "continue to argue" and yet you keep showing up for your bitch slapping.

So, have you backed off of your earlier "community standards" (double) statement?

 

[thereisnospoon]

You call it learning. The parents called it a double standard. Had the focus been on the Christian or Jewish faiths, I guarantee the howls of protest from left wing groups would have been heard across the country. So please, don't hand me that bullshit.
I am changing nothing.
Liberal Educrats made the decision to allow this indoctrination.
You stated that rights must apply to all. Who was looking out for the rights of those who believed this "lesson" violated the establishment clause?
Oh, the civil disobedience was in the decision of many parents to hold their children out of school or to opt out of the activity.
Just as parents do so when they object to state sanctioned sex education when in reality, teachers are using their position to impart THEIR morality on the students in place of where that should come from. The children's parents.
Why do you continue to argue? You're not getting anywhere.

As several people have noted on here, we have no problem with "teaching religion" as it relates to history and culture. You can't really delve into European history while ignoring the Catholic Church. The parents that were too scared to let their kids learn about a culture that influences billions of people on this planet are too stupid to be believed.

That's far different then and endorsement of religion or leading children in prayer. In fact, I'll bet if an Islamic prayer was made during the lesson plan, Sean Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the fucktards would be shitting a brick.

So it's apples and footballs.

You keep asking me why I "continue to argue" and yet you keep showing up for your bitch slapping.

So, have you backed off of your earlier "community standards" (double) statement?

ahh. so now you want make this personal....No class.
Take care in your tone.
That was a rhetorical question.
A person of your self proclaimed intelligence should have realized that.
This was a debate. You are trying to turn it into school yard brawl. I won't have it.
Your bitch slap comment is rejected. So are you.

 

[geauxtohell]

You call it learning. The parents called it a double standard. Had the focus been on the Christian or Jewish faiths, I guarantee the howls of protest from left wing groups would have been heard across the country. So please, don't hand me that bullshit.
I am changing nothing.
Liberal Educrats made the decision to allow this indoctrination.
You stated that rights must apply to all. Who was looking out for the rights of those who believed this "lesson" violated the establishment clause?
Oh, the civil disobedience was in the decision of many parents to hold their children out of school or to opt out of the activity.
Just as parents do so when they object to state sanctioned sex education when in reality, teachers are using their position to impart THEIR morality on the students in place of where that should come from. The children's parents.
Why do you continue to argue? You're not getting anywhere.

As several people have noted on here, we have no problem with "teaching religion" as it relates to history and culture. You can't really delve into European history while ignoring the Catholic Church. The parents that were too scared to let their kids learn about a culture that influences billions of people on this planet are too stupid to be believed.

That's far different then and endorsement of religion or leading children in prayer. In fact, I'll bet if an Islamic prayer was made during the lesson plan, Sean Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the fucktards would be shitting a brick.

So it's apples and footballs.

You keep asking me why I "continue to argue" and yet you keep showing up for your bitch slapping.

So, have you backed off of your earlier "community standards" (double) statement?

ahh. so now you want make this personal....No class.
Take care in your tone.
That was a rhetorical question.
A person of your self proclaimed intelligence should have realized that.
This was a debate. You are trying to turn it into school yard brawl. I won't have it.
Your bitch slap comment is rejected. So are you.

LMAO. If you are going to duck out, then fine. I am just going to poke-fun at the fact that you have been trying to back out of this thread by claiming I have no point for the past ten posts.

In the meantime, you have yet to respond to any of the actual points I made in my posts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As several people have noted on here, we have no problem with "teaching religion" as it relates to history and culture. You can't really delve into European history while ignoring the Catholic Church. The parents that were too scared to let their kids learn about a culture that influences billions of people on this planet are too stupid to be believed.

That's far different then and endorsement of religion or leading children in prayer. In fact, I'll bet if an Islamic prayer was made during the lesson plan, Sean Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the fucktards would be shitting a brick.

So it's apples and footballs.

You keep asking me why I "continue to argue" and yet you keep showing up for your bitch slapping.

So, have you backed off of your earlier "community standards" (double) statement?

ahh. so now you want make this personal....No class.
Take care in your tone.
That was a rhetorical question.
A person of your self proclaimed intelligence should have realized that.
This was a debate. You are trying to turn it into school yard brawl. I won't have it.
Your bitch slap comment is rejected. So are you.

LMAO. If you are going to duck out, then fine. I am just going to poke-fun at the fact that you have been trying to back out of this thread by claiming I have no point for the past ten posts.

In the meantime, you have yet to respond to any of the actual points I made in my posts.

and you have had the last word.
BTW, I DECIDE when I am to end a discussion. Not you.
I have decided because you are arguing just to argue.
You're wasting your time.

 

[geauxtohell]

and you have had the last word.
BTW, I DECIDE when I am to end a discussion. Not you.
I have decided because you are arguing just to argue.
You're wasting your time.

I am not keeping track of the "last word". This issue is interesting to me (obviously) so I'll continue to discuss it with whoever.

I never dreamed of having enough power to compell you to discuss a topic beyond a point of interest. If you want to take your ball and go home, then by all means. You just made some curious statements on this thread that you haven't really justified, but whatever.