Judge rules for Kountze cheerleaders in Bible banner suit

Issues like this will not be settled by judges forever, eventually "We the People" will take this nation back from activist judges that "interpret" the Constitution, not on the intents of the founders, but on thier own Godless and moralless opinions and political beleifs. The intent of the founders was NEVER meant to be a separation keeping religion out of the govt, but rather a separation meant to keep the govt out of our religion. The founders themselves grew up using the bible as a text book, and never said or did anything to stop that. Congress approved the printing of the Christian Bible during the Revolutionary war. Govt buildings, including the US Capitol building, where used for Christian church services when Thomas Jefferson, (remember him?), author of that ole "Wall of Separation" letter you Godless heathens and liberals love to quote, was the VP, and the US Marine Corps Band performed in many of these church services held in the Capitol. The US govt paid for missionaries and for the buidling of churches under the authorazation of Thomas Jefferson. I led with Thomas Jefferson because like I said, the Godless heathens and atheists love to quote his letter when addressing the separation issue, of course twisting it to mean something he never intended it to mean, but we have more proof of the Founder's intent than just the facts about Jefferson. We can look at the Founders themselves and what they believed to tell what their "intent" was in regards to the importance of the Christian faith in their lives, decisions and vision for the new nation they were creating.

Stands to Reason:
The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

Now only Godless scum, led and influenced by Satan himself, would ever "interpret" the intent of the Founders to be anything other than an intent based upon the core values and morals held by men of God, men who publically, as Govt. officials, the FIRST govt officials, proclaimed their belief in and dedication to, the Christian Lord and Savior. It's obvious that atheists, and for that matter muslims, buddhists, pagans and all other manner of Godless followers of Godless religions, had little or nothing to do with our nation's founding, and the intent of the Founders was never to sepatate the Lord they believed in from the Nation they were founding, but rather to keep the Nation's govt they were leaving behind from interfering with the teachings of the Lord they loved and followed.

These issues run too deep for most Patriots to forever be held in check by Godless courts, led by a tiny, tiny minority of Godless scum. Eventually the Patriots will say enough is enough, this nation was not founded for, nor built by, the Godless scum that now dictates the direction we are heading. Only an idiot, or one led and influenced by the enemy of the faith our Founders held dear, would ever think the founders intended the 14th amendment to mean sodomites and lesbians could be legally recognized as married couples, or that woman can wantonly destroy life in the womb for no reason, or that the intent of the 1st amendment was to deny school kids, or anyone else for that matter, the right to publically proclaim their belief in the Lord ior to tear down Ten Commandment signs on public property or take down Crosses on public land. These things, and the 101 other similar decisions Godless judges have decided over the past few decades, telling us this is their interpretation of the Foudner's intent, while ALL the evidence available contridicts this, will lead to the balkinazation of this nation and secterian warfare eventually. Chief Justice Hughes fired the first shot in 1907 when he informed us peons "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is," but believe me, that wasn't the last shot to be taken, the last shot to be taken is on the horizon. Jefferson warned us of the despotism we would live under if "We the People" allowed robed whores to be the only arbiters of the Constitution, a job the Founders meant to be held by the people as represented in Congress, and Patriots around this nation are starting to heed Jefferson's warning and are starting to remember the words of the REAL founding document of this Nation, which wasn't the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence which tells us;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

The days when of a tiny 2-5% minority, can dictate the morals, values and lives of the 98%, is coming to an end.
 
Last edited:
jtpr is plagiarizing, and a rather poor source.

And We the People, as a whole, generally accept SCOTUS rulings on religious expression and infringement.

Small, fringe groups always protest. But you have to reward them for passion. Carry on. :lol:
 
Last edited:
It seems you already tried to ‘asplain it and stumbled over your own comments. I’m sure you don’t understand the terms you’re using as “student sponsored religious speech” is a meaningless term.

Is “student sponsored religious speech” something connected to a student holding school sanctioned prayers? Your inability to compose coherent sentences leaves you at a disadvantage. Your opinions are not bloated, just deflated.

It seems that way, does it? Does that mean you can't actually defend your position?

Religious Speech Rights of Public School Students

Does the above mean you're grasping at straws? You should have read the link you posted. Nothing in the article indicated that the school system promoted, endorsed or funded the activities of the religious groups.

You are continuing to confuse the issue of free speech with government sanction and endorsement of religion.

It is not necessary for a school system to promote, endorse, or fund the activities of the religious groups for those activities to be offensive to the Constitution:

Even if we regard every high school student’s decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer [or display of religious banners] has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship. For “the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means.” Id., at 594. As in Lee, “[w]hat to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.” Id., at 592. The constitutional command will not permit the District “to exact religious conformity from a student as the price” of joining her classmates at a varsity football game.22

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE

Again, the school system is correct in its prohibition of the religious banners per the above case law; it is incumbent upon all public sector entities to know the law and act accordingly.
 
I will never understand why people get so hung up on specialized cases like this. There are cases where state-sponsored religious activity is very clear, and therefore prohibited as it should be. There are cases of clear cut student-sponsored religious activity that tends to be allowed, as it should be. Then you have cases like this. It's borderline, and people can argue from their respective agenda all day long. Personally, I couldn't care less either way. There is no blatant slap in the face to free speech, the establishment clause, or the free exercise clause. Whatever happens is this case really such a freaking powder keg? I swear. Sometimes you gotta pick your battles, you know?

When your rights are being erroded, you have to fight all of your battles

Fight fight fight. That's the fucking problem, EVERYTHING is a fight. People wonder why our nation is so paralyzed, when open dialogue has given way to open warfare. I'm not advocating impotent compromise, but I am advocating a little fucking unity in the "United" States. It's not a bad thing to once in a while recognize that we are Americans together and not fight on every little thing. A house divided, people.
 
jtpr is plagiarizing, and a rather poor source.

And We the People, as a whole, generally accept SCOTUS rulings on religious expression and infringement.

Small, fringe groups always protest. But you have to reward them for passion. Carry on. :lol:

It is a shame that sensibility is such a rare commodity. YOU carry on, sir.
 
I will never understand why people get so hung up on specialized cases like this. There are cases where state-sponsored religious activity is very clear, and therefore prohibited as it should be. There are cases of clear cut student-sponsored religious activity that tends to be allowed, as it should be. Then you have cases like this. It's borderline, and people can argue from their respective agenda all day long. Personally, I couldn't care less either way. There is no blatant slap in the face to free speech, the establishment clause, or the free exercise clause. Whatever happens is this case really such a freaking powder keg? I swear. Sometimes you gotta pick your battles, you know?

I used to think like you, then I got smart.

See? We DO have things in common. You should go back to thinking like me. I used to think like you, and I had a chip on my shoulder and some serious anger issues. It started affecting my life in very adverse ways. Then one day I looked at the organization for which I work, a rather large one, and tried to imagine how successful it would be if most or all of the people within it were constantly divided and fighting on every little thing, and I realized it would fall like a house of cards. Abraham Lincoln was right.

I started coming here because I enjoy open dialogue, even with people like you. :D

I even get caught up in needless fights over minutiae myself, such as you and I have tussled over before. Jake Starkey posted what is probably the most sensible thing yet in this thread. There is a difference between impotent compromise, which I understand is probably what you oppose, and trying to establish a connection between people so there can occasionally be a positive outcome.
 
Last edited:
Issues like this will not be settled by judges forever, eventually "We the People" will take this nation back from activist judges that "interpret" the Constitution, not on the intents of the founders, but on thier own Godless and moralless opinions and political beleifs. The intent of the founders was NEVER meant to be a separation keeping religion out of the govt, but rather a separation meant to keep the govt out of our religion. The founders themselves grew up using the bible as a text book, and never said or did anything to stop that. Congress approved the printing of the Christian Bible during the Revolutionary war. Govt buildings, including the US Capitol building, where used for Christian church services when Thomas Jefferson, (remember him?), author of that ole "Wall of Separation" letter you Godless heathens and liberals love to quote, was the VP, and the US Marine Corps Band performed in many of these church services held in the Capitol. The US govt paid for missionaries and for the buidling of churches under the authorazation of Thomas Jefferson. I led with Thomas Jefferson because like I said, the Godless heathens and atheists love to quote his letter when addressing the separation issue, of course twisting it to mean something he never intended it to mean, but we have more proof of the Founder's intent than just the facts about Jefferson. We can look at the Founders themselves and what they believed to tell what their "intent" was in regards to the importance of the Christian faith in their lives, decisions and vision for the new nation they were creating.

Stands to Reason:
The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

Now only Godless scum, led and influenced by Satan himself, would ever "interpret" the intent of the Founders to be anything other than an intent based upon the core values and morals held by men of God, men who publically, as Govt. officials, the FIRST govt officials, proclaimed their belief in and dedication to, the Christian Lord and Savior. It's obvious that atheists, and for that matter muslims, buddhists, pagans and all other manner of Godless followers of Godless religions, had little or nothing to do with our nation's founding, and the intent of the Founders was never to sepatate the Lord they believed in from the Nation they were founding, but rather to keep the Nation's govt they were leaving behind from interfering with the teachings of the Lord they loved and followed.

These issues run too deep for most Patriots to forever be held in check by Godless courts, led by a tiny, tiny minority of Godless scum. Eventually the Patriots will say enough is enough, this nation was not founded for, nor built by, the Godless scum that now dictates the direction we are heading. Only an idiot, or one led and influenced by the enemy of the faith our Founders held dear, would ever think the founders intended the 14th amendment to mean sodomites and lesbians could be legally recognized as married couples, or that woman can wantonly destroy life in the womb for no reason, or that the intent of the 1st amendment was to deny school kids, or anyone else for that matter, the right to publically proclaim their belief in the Lord ior to tear down Ten Commandment signs on public property or take down Crosses on public land. These things, and the 101 other similar decisions Godless judges have decided over the past few decades, telling us this is their interpretation of the Foudner's intent, while ALL the evidence available contridicts this, will lead to the balkinazation of this nation and secterian warfare eventually. Chief Justice Hughes fired the first shot in 1907 when he informed us peons "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is," but believe me, that wasn't the last shot to be taken, the last shot to be taken is on the horizon. Jefferson warned us of the despotism we would live under if "We the People" allowed robed whores to be the only arbiters of the Constitution, a job the Founders meant to be held by the people as represented in Congress, and Patriots around this nation are starting to heed Jefferson's warning and are starting to remember the words of the REAL founding document of this Nation, which wasn't the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence which tells us;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

The days when of a tiny 2-5% minority, can dictate the morals, values and lives of the 98%, is coming to an end.

Oh my, “godless heathens”. Does that come with a jingle?

Oh, never mind. It appears the Christian Taliban is on a recruiting drive.


With all your impassioned pleas claiming the religious affiliation of the FF’s, what you seem to have missed is that they chose to frame a constitution that was completely neutral about religion. Don’t you find that odd in the context of your suggestion that the FF’s were largely “god(s) fearing” Christians? Maybe you should accept the idea that they knew something you don’t.

The entire constitution defines rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. It does not take any stretch of imagination to understand that the framers of the constitution intended to place limits such that government is restrained from interfering with freedom of speech, promoting and/or favoring any one religion to the detriment of others, etc.

Some of the FF’s had direct experience with theocracies (of the Christian persuasion), and knew the dangers of coercive religious passions. You should have paid attention to, and actually read, some of the autobiographies of the people you are generously assigning Christianity to. You should also pay attention to the concept of lumping the majority of the FF’s as “Christians” and as a homogenous entity. Gross generalizations such as those you are tossing about typically speak to one bereft of ability to make distinctions between fact and fantasy. Most thinking humans find gross generalizations distasteful and you seem insistent upon believing that your views of the FF’s are proxies for the beliefs of ALL the FF’s. I would have expected that you would be mature enough to take every individual's opinion as its own entity, as you might expect to have done to you.
 
SCOTUS rulings are very clear. Government cannot endorse or enhance religion in tax-supported settings. Thus school board is acting correctly while the students certainly have every right to push their agenda. SCOTUS decisions clearly limit the rights of citizens to enforce their religious beliefs on other citizens in tax-supported settings.

Your gross "generalizations", Hollie, that you appear to think you somehow speak for most Christians in America everywhere is fantasy, not fact. What you believe about the FFs is your opinion only and no caveat that we should believe that it is a mainstream American Christian thinking.

Thank you for sharing, and any time you wish to support your opinions with evidence and documentation, others than can reply to your affirmation with the same.
 
Last edited:
SCOTUS rulings are very clear. Government cannot endorse or enhance religion in tax-supported settings. Thus school board is acting correctly while the students certainly have every right to push their agenda. SCOTUS decisions clearly limit the rights of citizens to enforce their religious beliefs on other citizens in tax-supported settings.

Your gross "generalizations", Hollie, that you appear to think you somehow speak for most Christians in America everywhere is fantasy, not fact. What you believe about the FFs is your opinion only and no caveat that we should believe that it is a mainstream American Christian thinking.

Thank you for sharing, and any time you wish to support your opinions with evidence and documentation, others than can reply to your affirmation with the same.

Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.
 
The FFs made their decisions, and SCOTUS, not you or me or the FFs, have the final say about it in the 21st century.

Expect those who are better informed to scoff at your lecturing of them. Yes, Hollie, you are sharing nothing but babble as you push your small minority agenda on others.



SCOTUS rulings are very clear. Government cannot endorse or enhance religion in tax-supported settings. Thus school board is acting correctly while the students certainly have every right to push their agenda. SCOTUS decisions clearly limit the rights of citizens to enforce their religious beliefs on other citizens in tax-supported settings.

Your gross "generalizations", Hollie, that you appear to think you somehow speak for most Christians in America everywhere is fantasy, not fact. What you believe about the FFs is your opinion only and no caveat that we should believe that it is a mainstream American Christian thinking.

Thank you for sharing, and any time you wish to support your opinions with evidence and documentation, others than can reply to your affirmation with the same.

Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.
 
SCOTUS rulings are very clear. Government cannot endorse or enhance religion in tax-supported settings. Thus school board is acting correctly while the students certainly have every right to push their agenda. SCOTUS decisions clearly limit the rights of citizens to enforce their religious beliefs on other citizens in tax-supported settings.

Your gross "generalizations", Hollie, that you appear to think you somehow speak for most Christians in America everywhere is fantasy, not fact. What you believe about the FFs is your opinion only and no caveat that we should believe that it is a mainstream American Christian thinking.

Thank you for sharing, and any time you wish to support your opinions with evidence and documentation, others than can reply to your affirmation with the same.

Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.

I fully defend Jake's post. The problem with extremist views like yours and Quantum's is that there is no room in them for everyday Americans who just want to live their lives. SCOTUS rulings provide a pretty sensible framework for dealing with religious expression. There is no perfect solution, there is only the best we can do, and at least where this subject is included, the Supreme Court did its job admirably.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent far left and far right pundits to attack each other under the notion that the other is eroding our rights away. We have a reasonably fair framework through SCOTUS rulings in this regard. This story seems a pretty small fish to dedicate this much frying to.
 
But chum does lure out predators, and that is what this case is doing, luring out the far right and their arguments for all to see. The KHS cheer leaders will continue for the remainder of the school year with their signs, and eventually trial and then appellate court decision overturning the judge's stay.

SCOTUS has spoken on these matters, and case law will uphold the school in the end.

The school will also be entitled to collect legal fees from the cheer leaders' families and supporters.

SCOTUS rulings are very clear. Government cannot endorse or enhance religion in tax-supported settings. Thus school board is acting correctly while the students certainly have every right to push their agenda. SCOTUS decisions clearly limit the rights of citizens to enforce their religious beliefs on other citizens in tax-supported settings.

Your gross "generalizations", Hollie, that you appear to think you somehow speak for most Christians in America everywhere is fantasy, not fact. What you believe about the FFs is your opinion only and no caveat that we should believe that it is a mainstream American Christian thinking.

Thank you for sharing, and any time you wish to support your opinions with evidence and documentation, others than can reply to your affirmation with the same.

Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.

I fully defend Jake's post. The problem with extremist views like yours and Quantum's is that there is no room in them for everyday Americans who just want to live their lives. SCOTUS rulings provide a pretty sensible framework for dealing with religious expression. There is no perfect solution, there is only the best we can do, and at least where this subject is included, the Supreme Court did its job admirably.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent far left and far right pundits to attack each other under the notion that the other is eroding our rights away. We have a reasonably fair framework through SCOTUS rulings in this regard. This story seems a pretty small fish to dedicate this much frying to.
 
SCOTUS rulings are very clear. Government cannot endorse or enhance religion in tax-supported settings. Thus school board is acting correctly while the students certainly have every right to push their agenda. SCOTUS decisions clearly limit the rights of citizens to enforce their religious beliefs on other citizens in tax-supported settings.

Your gross "generalizations", Hollie, that you appear to think you somehow speak for most Christians in America everywhere is fantasy, not fact. What you believe about the FFs is your opinion only and no caveat that we should believe that it is a mainstream American Christian thinking.

Thank you for sharing, and any time you wish to support your opinions with evidence and documentation, others than can reply to your affirmation with the same.

Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.

I fully defend Jake's post. The problem with extremist views like yours and Quantum's is that there is no room in them for everyday Americans who just want to live their lives. SCOTUS rulings provide a pretty sensible framework for dealing with religious expression. There is no perfect solution, there is only the best we can do, and at least where this subject is included, the Supreme Court did its job admirably.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent far left and far right pundits to attack each other under the notion that the other is eroding our rights away. We have a reasonably fair framework through SCOTUS rulings in this regard. This story seems a pretty small fish to dedicate this much frying to.

My views are extreme for defending the constitution and supporting past court rulings upholding the principle of separation of church and state? What a strange notion.
 
Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.

I fully defend Jake's post. The problem with extremist views like yours and Quantum's is that there is no room in them for everyday Americans who just want to live their lives. SCOTUS rulings provide a pretty sensible framework for dealing with religious expression. There is no perfect solution, there is only the best we can do, and at least where this subject is included, the Supreme Court did its job admirably.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent far left and far right pundits to attack each other under the notion that the other is eroding our rights away. We have a reasonably fair framework through SCOTUS rulings in this regard. This story seems a pretty small fish to dedicate this much frying to.

My views are extreme for defending the constitution and supporting past court rulings upholding the principle of separation of church and state? What a strange notion.

So do I. I just don't have the size of bone to pick with people of faith that you apparently have. I am not a Christian, but I came to terms with the fact that most Americans are, and have always been.
 
Your "views are extreme for defending" a minority interpretation of "the constitution and supporting past court rulings upholding the principle of separation of church and state" is your "strange notion".

If SCOTUS agreed with your views, Hollie, we would not be having this discussion.

Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.

I fully defend Jake's post. The problem with extremist views like yours and Quantum's is that there is no room in them for everyday Americans who just want to live their lives. SCOTUS rulings provide a pretty sensible framework for dealing with religious expression. There is no perfect solution, there is only the best we can do, and at least where this subject is included, the Supreme Court did its job admirably.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent far left and far right pundits to attack each other under the notion that the other is eroding our rights away. We have a reasonably fair framework through SCOTUS rulings in this regard. This story seems a pretty small fish to dedicate this much frying to.

My views are extreme for defending the constitution and supporting past court rulings upholding the principle of separation of church and state? What a strange notion.
 
The FFs made their decisions, and SCOTUS, not you or me or the FFs, have the final say about it in the 21st century.

Expect those who are better informed to scoff at your lecturing of them. Yes, Hollie, you are sharing nothing but babble as you push your small minority agenda on others.



SCOTUS rulings are very clear. Government cannot endorse or enhance religion in tax-supported settings. Thus school board is acting correctly while the students certainly have every right to push their agenda. SCOTUS decisions clearly limit the rights of citizens to enforce their religious beliefs on other citizens in tax-supported settings.

Your gross "generalizations", Hollie, that you appear to think you somehow speak for most Christians in America everywhere is fantasy, not fact. What you believe about the FFs is your opinion only and no caveat that we should believe that it is a mainstream American Christian thinking.

Thank you for sharing, and any time you wish to support your opinions with evidence and documentation, others than can reply to your affirmation with the same.

Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.
Ah, so its goofy slogans? You don't define "small minority agenda" because it's a meaningless term. I'm guessing you read it on the internet somewhere and you thought it would be something you could use elsewhere.

I don't see it as a "small minority agenda" to keep the intent and written wishes of the FF's in place. We don't have to assume the intent of the FF's vision for this nation, they wrote it down for us.

Just a thought from this "godless heathens" to those caring, accepting, accommodating Christian Taliban who define those not accepting of their religious belief as "godless heathens". Who, really, is pressing an agenda here?
 
Last edited:
Your "small minority agenda" clearly defines you and your sloganeering.

Readers here must be surprised to learn the FFs are using you to "channel" their intentions. We can all read them for ourselves.

Take up your concerns with SCOTUS if you want change.

The FFs made their decisions, and SCOTUS, not you or me or the FFs, have the final say about it in the 21st century.

Expect those who are better informed to scoff at your lecturing of them. Yes, Hollie, you are sharing nothing but babble as you push your small minority agenda on others.



Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.
Ah, so its goofy slogans? You don't define "small minority agenda" because it's a meaningless term. I'm guessing you read it on the internet somewhere and you thought it would be something you could use elsewhere.

I don't see it as a "small minority agenda" to keep the intent and written wishes of the FF's in place. We don't have to assume the intent of the FF's vision for this nation, they wrote it down for us.

Just a thought from this "godless heathens" to those caring, accepting, accommodating Christian Taliban who define those not accepting of their religious belief as "godless heathens". Who, really, is pressing an agenda here?
 
Your "small minority agenda" clearly defines you and your sloganeering.

Readers here must be surprised to learn the FFs are using you to "channel" their intentions. We can all read them for ourselves.

Take up your concerns with SCOTUS if you want change.

The FFs made their decisions, and SCOTUS, not you or me or the FFs, have the final say about it in the 21st century.

Expect those who are better informed to scoff at your lecturing of them. Yes, Hollie, you are sharing nothing but babble as you push your small minority agenda on others.
Ah, so its goofy slogans? You don't define "small minority agenda" because it's a meaningless term. I'm guessing you read it on the internet somewhere and you thought it would be something you could use elsewhere.

I don't see it as a "small minority agenda" to keep the intent and written wishes of the FF's in place. We don't have to assume the intent of the FF's vision for this nation, they wrote it down for us.

Just a thought from this "godless heathens" to those caring, accepting, accommodating Christian Taliban who define those not accepting of their religious belief as "godless heathens". Who, really, is pressing an agenda here?
My goodness, Jake but more slogans? As noted, and as you were unable to address, your "small minority agenda" is still a meaningless slogan even with your repeated use.

You may wish to take up your hoped for re-writing of the constitution with the appropriate branch of government. You may have missed it but the FF's actually established a framework of government that has three branches, one of which is tasked with law making.

I would expect that prior to you deciding to lecture people on subjects you are wholly misinformed about, you would excuse yourself from the conversation and acquire some knowledge relative to the topic.
 
Your sloganeering is meaningless. You clearly don't understand the FFs and you resent that SCOTUS does not rule as you wish. That is your tough luck. :lol:

Go back to channeling the FFs, Hollie.

Your "small minority agenda" clearly defines you and your sloganeering.

Readers here must be surprised to learn the FFs are using you to "channel" their intentions. We can all read them for ourselves.

Take up your concerns with SCOTUS if you want change.

Ah, so its goofy slogans? You don't define "small minority agenda" because it's a meaningless term. I'm guessing you read it on the internet somewhere and you thought it would be something you could use elsewhere.

I don't see it as a "small minority agenda" to keep the intent and written wishes of the FF's in place. We don't have to assume the intent of the FF's vision for this nation, they wrote it down for us.

Just a thought from this "godless heathens" to those caring, accepting, accommodating Christian Taliban who define those not accepting of their religious belief as "godless heathens". Who, really, is pressing an agenda here?
My goodness, Jake but more slogans? As noted, and as you were unable to address, your "small minority agenda" is still a meaningless slogan even with your repeated use.

You may wish to take up your hoped for re-writing of the constitution with the appropriate branch of government. You may have missed it but the FF's actually established a framework of government that has three branches, one of which is tasked with law making.

I would expect that prior to you deciding to lecture people on subjects you are wholly misinformed about, you would excuse yourself from the conversation and acquire some knowledge relative to the topic.
 
It seems you already tried to ‘asplain it and stumbled over your own comments. I’m sure you don’t understand the terms you’re using as “student sponsored religious speech” is a meaningless term.

Is “student sponsored religious speech” something connected to a student holding school sanctioned prayers? Your inability to compose coherent sentences leaves you at a disadvantage. Your opinions are not bloated, just deflated.

It seems that way, does it? Does that mean you can't actually defend your position?

Religious Speech Rights of Public School Students

Does the above mean you're grasping at straws? You should have read the link you posted. Nothing in the article indicated that the school system promoted, endorsed or funded the activities of the religious groups.

You are continuing to confuse the issue of free speech with government sanction and endorsement of religion.

The school district insisting on prior approval of student led speech doesn't amount to official control of speech in your universe?
 

Forum List

Back
Top