I would like to hear how teacher led prayer in public schools is constitutional

[bodecea]

What they do is say thing like "oh sure, I guess you don't mind walking on the constitution if it's about ISLAM".

Implying of course that it's unconstitutional to not want the mosque there. Or implying that anybody is even saying they don't have a right to build a mosque there.

ah.... the old "implying" game.

So... you DON'T have anyone from the left who has said that protest is unconstitutional?

why not just say so?

Good lords, is Allie still making shit up?

 

[JakeStarkey]

AllieBaba, please give concrete evidence that your assertion has some traction. Please.

 

[Rezonator]

the Constitution puts restrictions on schools and the teachers that work for them (they are "the government")

The primary restriction the Constitution prescribes is that "the government" has no enumerated powers to be meddling in schools or education at all. Analyzing the relative merits of the "restrictions on schools and the teachers" imposed by the federal government is tantamount to discussing the relative merits of shackles, gags, and nipple clamps.

Of course, for a historical perspective, it's always illuminating to turn to Karl Marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party, plank 10 of which is: "Free education for all children in public schools." That was published in 1848.

In 1867 the federal Department of Education was established.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Coincidence as causality? Rezonator's arguments have been examined and rejected by the courts. Let's move on.

 

[George Costanza]

the Constitution puts restrictions on schools and the teachers that work for them (they are "the government")

The primary restriction the Constitution prescribes is that "the government" has no enumerated powers to be meddling in schools or education at all. Analyzing the relative merits of the "restrictions on schools and the teachers" imposed by the federal government is tantamount to discussing the relative merits of shackles, gags, and nipple clamps.

Of course, for a historical perspective, it's always illuminating to turn to Karl Marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party, plank 10 of which is: "Free education for all children in public schools." That was published in 1848.

In 1867 the federal Department of Education was established.

What are you trying to say here? Public schools are government entities. As such, they are subject to restrictions on the government, the same as any other government entity. This very much includes First Amendment restrictions on the establishment of religion.

 

[Rezonator]

the Constitution puts restrictions on schools and the teachers that work for them (they are "the government")

The primary restriction the Constitution prescribes is that "the government" has no enumerated powers to be meddling in schools or education at all. Analyzing the relative merits of the "restrictions on schools and the teachers" imposed by the federal government is tantamount to discussing the relative merits of shackles, gags, and nipple clamps.

Of course, for a historical perspective, it's always illuminating to turn to Karl Marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party, plank 10 of which is: "Free education for all children in public schools." That was published in 1848.

In 1867 the federal Department of Education was established.

What are you trying to say here? Public schools are government entities.

Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the enumerated power to establish public schools as government entities, or have any enumerated power over education at all? (Hint: it doesn't.)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rezanator has a right to an opinion, no matter how wrong. And, no, he is not a judge of the Constitution.

 

[Rezonator]

Coincidence as causality?

No: correct and accurately stated sequence of events. Jake Starkey delusions of courthood have been examined and laughed into LaLa Land where he can pound his head with his gavel.

 

[George Costanza]

The primary restriction the Constitution prescribes is that "the government" has no enumerated powers to be meddling in schools or education at all. Analyzing the relative merits of the "restrictions on schools and the teachers" imposed by the federal government is tantamount to discussing the relative merits of shackles, gags, and nipple clamps.

Of course, for a historical perspective, it's always illuminating to turn to Karl Marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party, plank 10 of which is: "Free education for all children in public schools." That was published in 1848.

In 1867 the federal Department of Education was established.

What are you trying to say here? Public schools are government entities.

Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the enumerated power to establish public schools as government entities, or have any enumerated power over education at all? (Hint: it doesn't.)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I am growing weary of these "where in the Constitution does it say?" arguments.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that police have to advise a suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel prior to questioning him - yet that is the law of the land and it is based on the 5th, 6th and 14the Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Governmental entities are pretty easy to spot - generally, those who work for them get paid out of public funds, i.e., tax money. They are administered by other governmental agencies.

Trust me. Public schools are governmental entities.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Coincidence as causality?

No: correct and accurately stated sequence of events. Jake Starkey delusions of courthood have been examined and laughed into LaLa Land where he can pound his head with his gavel.

By whom? Functional illiterates? You have not made the connection. Until you do, it is merely nonsense on your part.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The constitutional illiterates, such as Rezonator and others, beg to differ.

 

[Rezonator]

I am growing weary of these "where in the Constitution does it say?" arguments.

Maybe, then, you're just weary of the Constitution. Your arguments seem support that conclusion.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that police have to advise a suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel prior to questioning him - yet that is the law of the land and it is based on the 5th, 6th and 14the Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Yes, it is based on specific mandates of the Constitution. And federal government involvement in education is based on nothing in the Constitution.

[Cue flock of "general welfare" loons]

 

[del]

the Constitution puts restrictions on schools and the teachers that work for them (they are "the government")

The primary restriction the Constitution prescribes is that "the government" has no enumerated powers to be meddling in schools or education at all. Analyzing the relative merits of the "restrictions on schools and the teachers" imposed by the federal government is tantamount to discussing the relative merits of shackles, gags, and nipple clamps.

Of course, for a historical perspective, it's always illuminating to turn to Karl Marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party, plank 10 of which is: "Free education for all children in public schools." That was published in 1848.

In 1867 the federal Department of Education was established.

and your alleged point would be what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am growing weary of these "where in the Constitution does it say?" arguments.

Maybe, then, you're just weary of the Constitution. Your arguments seem support that conclusion.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that police have to advise a suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel prior to questioning him - yet that is the law of the land and it is based on the 5th, 6th and 14the Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Yes, it is based on specific mandates of the Constitution. And federal government involvement in education is based on nothing in the Constitution.

[Cue flock of "general welfare" loons]

Nah, but do "cue laugh track" when you post.

 

[bodecea]

The primary restriction the Constitution prescribes is that "the government" has no enumerated powers to be meddling in schools or education at all. Analyzing the relative merits of the "restrictions on schools and the teachers" imposed by the federal government is tantamount to discussing the relative merits of shackles, gags, and nipple clamps.

Of course, for a historical perspective, it's always illuminating to turn to Karl Marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party, plank 10 of which is: "Free education for all children in public schools." That was published in 1848.

In 1867 the federal Department of Education was established.

What are you trying to say here? Public schools are government entities.

Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the enumerated power to establish public schools as government entities, or have any enumerated power over education at all? (Hint: it doesn't.)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Anyone else notice that this poster answered his own question without knowing it?

 

[George Costanza]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. He cannot get by his erroneous assumption that public schools are not governmental agencies.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.
I don't agree with Darwin , but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered in any way because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.

So what's the big deal?

It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United States of America , and Canada , countries founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1.
So what would you expect --
somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem ,
I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad,
I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

If I went to a ping pong match in China ,
I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha

And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.

When in Rome .....

But what about the atheists? Is another argument.

What about them?

Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer! Or, just exercise their right to leave this country!

Unfortunately, one or two will call their lawyer.
One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing.
Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want!

It is time that the majority rules!

It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him.
That is your right, and we will honor your right;
but by golly,
you are no longer going to take our rights away.
We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!"

God bless us one and all...Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America and despite all our faults, we are still the greatest nation of all.
God bless our service men who
are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

 

[bodecea]

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.
I don't agree with Darwin , but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered in any way because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.

So what's the big deal?

It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United States of America , and Canada , countries founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1.
So what would you expect --
somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem ,
I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad,
I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

If I went to a ping pong match in China ,
I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha

And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.

When in Rome .....

But what about the atheists? Is another argument.

What about them?

Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer! Or, just exercise their right to leave this country!

Unfortunately, one or two will call their lawyer.
One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing.
Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want!

It is time that the majority rules!

It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him.
That is your right, and we will honor your right;
but by golly,
you are no longer going to take our rights away.
We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!"

God bless us one and all...Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America and despite all our faults, we are still the greatest nation of all.
God bless our service men who
are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

Oh, the goldmine of hilarity! Where to start....where to start.....

 

[George Costanza]

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.
I don't agree with Darwin , but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered in any way because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.

So what's the big deal?

It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United States of America , and Canada , countries founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1.
So what would you expect --
somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem ,
I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad,
I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

If I went to a ping pong match in China ,
I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha

And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.

When in Rome .....

But what about the atheists? Is another argument.

What about them?

Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer! Or, just exercise their right to leave this country!

Unfortunately, one or two will call their lawyer.
One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing.
Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want!

It is time that the majority rules!

It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him.
That is your right, and we will honor your right;
but by golly,
you are no longer going to take our rights away.
We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!"

God bless us one and all...Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America and despite all our faults, we are still the greatest nation of all.
God bless our service men who
are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

How would you feel about a 30-second space of time devoted to forcing everyone present to listen to a quick message as to why athesism is preferable to belief in God?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.
I don't agree with Darwin , but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered in any way because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.

So what's the big deal?

It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United States of America , and Canada , countries founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1.
So what would you expect --
somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem ,
I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad,
I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

If I went to a ping pong match in China ,
I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha

And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.

When in Rome .....

But what about the atheists? Is another argument.

What about them?

Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer! Or, just exercise their right to leave this country!

Unfortunately, one or two will call their lawyer.
One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing.
Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want!

It is time that the majority rules!

It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him.
That is your right, and we will honor your right;
but by golly,
you are no longer going to take our rights away.
We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!"

God bless us one and all...Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America and despite all our faults, we are still the greatest nation of all.
God bless our service men who
are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

How would you feel about a 30-second space of time devoted to forcing everyone present to listen to a quick message as to why athesism is preferable to belief in God?

First of all no one can force me to listen to anything. I have the freedom to walk away or simply ignore the message altogether. I wouldn't stop the person from their right to preach whatever message they wanted.