Silenced on the Day of Silence

[acludem]

You are correct Reilly, that principle was established in the Hazelwood case, which involved a student newspaper. The rationale is because the school can be held both criminally and financially liable for what goes on there it has to have some control over what is in the newspaper and what goes on on school grounds. This does not mean, however, that students have NO free speech rights. For example, if students want to wear black arm bands as a silent protest they have the right to do so. I do not think the kid in this case should've been suspended. I have criticized him for the particular bible passages he chose to employ and think he did not fully think through what he was doing. His best bet would've simply been to do nothing. Some students choosing to be silent in support of gay rights does not affect him or his ability to learn or to be homophobic if that's what he chooses.

acludem

 

[Big D]

I think Homo's should have silent day, everyday.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by acludem
His best bet would've simply been to do nothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean bury his head in the sand? Keep his filthy, bigoted Christian thoughts to himself? Hide in a corner while an arrogant cultural elite rolls it's agenda over the top of God-fearing, tax-paying Americans and their duly elected representatives? Wow! That's sage advice, Acludem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:
Some students choosing to be silent in support of gay rights does not affect him or his ability to learn or to be homophobic if that's what he chooses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how hard I try, every time I put the prefix "homo" and the word "phobia" together, I get some weird, wacky definition like "neurotic, irrational fear of like beings." Prefixes and words have origins and meanings. Oh, I understand that slang and techno-speak add new words to our language. But "homophobia"
is unique. It's a senseless, made- up word with a sinister agenda. If you find homosexuality repugnant, unnatural and immoral, you've got the problem! You're phobic !

I refuse to codify or acknowledge that idiotic non-word.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by Big D
I think Homo's should have silent day, everyday.

Yeah. It's impolite to talk with your mouth full.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by acludem
You are correct Reilly, that principle was established in the Hazelwood case, which involved a student newspaper. The rationale is because the school can be held both criminally and financially liable for what goes on there it has to have some control over what is in the newspaper and what goes on on school grounds. This does not mean, however, that students have NO free speech rights. For example, if students want to wear black arm bands as a silent protest they have the right to do so. I do not think the kid in this case should've been suspended. I have criticized him for the particular bible passages he chose to employ and think he did not fully think through what he was doing. His best bet would've simply been to do nothing. Some students choosing to be silent in support of gay rights does not affect him or his ability to learn or to be homophobic if that's what he chooses.

acludem

Well, gee, that's where you are wrong. Wherein wearing a tshirt does not affect anyone in a school setting being silent certainly does.

To whit:

if a student is called upon to answer in class and does not that student gets a mark against him. However, in the setting of silence day they don't. Seems to me that's discrimination against those who, on other days, don't answer.

School is participatory, those who choose not to participate don't follow rules. Why is it okay to allow some students to not follow rules and yet others are penalized for the same thing.

Discrimination is unfair.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Moi


Discrimination is unfair. [/B]

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
You are correct Reilly, that principle was established in the Hazelwood case, which involved a student newspaper. The rationale is because the school can be held both criminally and financially liable for what goes on there it has to have some control over what is in the newspaper and what goes on on school grounds. This does not mean, however, that students have NO free speech rights. For example, if students want to wear black arm bands as a silent protest they have the right to do so. I do not think the kid in this case should've been suspended. I have criticized him for the particular bible passages he chose to employ and think he did not fully think through what he was doing. His best bet would've simply been to do nothing. Some students choosing to be silent in support of gay rights does not affect him or his ability to learn or to be homophobic if that's what he chooses.

acludem

School or not, this is unconstitutional. No school or any other body from government can say or do anything about it:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

There is no clearer way to say it.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
I am not sure what statements you are referring to, but lusting can apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I don't think a statement about lusting would necessarily be a stance against homosexuality. I think Hobbit is right - the closest Jesus came to specifically proscribing homosexuality is his statement that the Old Testament laws should be obeyed.

Actually, not.

Jesus and the old testament mention PERVERSIONS.

Sex was defined as between man and woman, and rules were given to not do this WITH THE SAME GENDER. Read the references.

Homosexuality is called a perversion AND homosexuality is LITERALLY spelled out as unacceptable. In addition, sex is given parameters as to what IS acceptable. You don't need anything else to tell you the Bible's stance, Jesus's stance, or any common sense approach to what is right.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by AtlantaWalter
That's what I though, no reliable source. Not that I disagree with your point on gay marriages, I have just never believed in a book of fairy tales to substantiate a point.

I agree with Hobbit's reply on this so I won't anything else to say that if God can believe in you, I would say YOU have the EASY part in believing in Him.

It takes far more faith to believe that direction at this point than the other.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
School or not, this is unconstitutional. No school or any other body from government can say or do anything about it:

The Supreme Court, conservative and liberal justices alike, would disagree with you. I know that you think that the Constitution is detailed and explicit and does not require any interpretation, but nearly every lawyer (and politician) in the nation would disagree with this. Practice has proven interpretation is needed. While I applaud you for the strength of your convictions, lets argue from the basis of the reality of today. I don't mean this to be at all condescending. It is just that your view is very outside the mainstream (of at least those that have seriously inquired into the issue), and doesn't leave room for discussion with the way the Constitution is interpreted and applied today (of which there is substantial disagreement).

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Actually, not.

Jesus and the old testament mention PERVERSIONS.

Sex was defined as between man and woman, and rules were given to not do this WITH THE SAME GENDER. Read the references.

Homosexuality is called a perversion AND homosexuality is LITERALLY spelled out as unacceptable. In addition, sex is given parameters as to what IS acceptable. You don't need anything else to tell you the Bible's stance, Jesus's stance, or any common sense approach to what is right.

I wasn't arguing that the Bible proscribes homosexuality (I saw the cites). It clearly does. I was just making the point (and clarifying for my own edification, I suppose) that Jesus never explicitly discussed homosexuality in the Gospels.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
The Supreme Court, conservative and liberal justices alike, would disagree with you. I know that you think that the Constitution is detailed and explicit and does not require any interpretation, but nearly every lawyer (and politician) in the nation would disagree with this.

Oh. If i would have known that the majority overrides the Constitution, I could have saved my breath.

How about showing me just 1 place in the Constitution where ANYONE has authority to override it?

Practice has proven interpretation is needed.

No, illiteracy combined with socialist agenda has proven it. -And one perpetuates the other. Want to take a stab at which way it works?

While I applaud you for the strength of your convictions, lets argue from the basis of the reality of today.

Why are you directing a statement toward yourself out loud?

I don't think you can do it. You can't read our founding documents correctly, apparently. Either that or you think they don't matter.

I don't mean this to be at all condescending. It is just that your view is very outside the mainstream (of at least those that have seriously inquired into the issue), and doesn't leave room for discussion with the way the Constitution is interpreted and applied today (of which there is substantial disagreement).

Since when does that make the majority view correct?

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Oh. If i would have known that the majority overrides the Constitution, I could have saved my breath.

How about showing me just 1 place in the Constitution where ANYONE has authority to override it?

We are not talking about overriding it, we are talking about interpreting. The Supreme Court is the institution that determines whether a law violates the Constitution, and to do so, they must determine what exactly the Constitution says and means. The Supreme Court has determined that even Freedom of Speech is not absolute. One can't walk around trying to incite violence or mobs, threatening the lives of other citizens or the President, or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I think these are all very reasonable limits that have been placed on the Freedom of Speech. Other portions of the Constitution are vague in their mandates, and interpretation is required to understand what was meant. Words are often vague expressions of intention.

Originally posted by NewGuy

No, illiteracy combined with socialist agenda has proven it. -And one perpetuates the other. Want to take a stab at which way it works?

Whatever you think has resulted in the view that the Constitution needs to be interpreted, it is not illiteracy. Two hundred years of Supreme Court justices, most of them probably smarter than you or I, have felt it necessary. I also doubt that the Supreme Court in the 1790's and early 1800's decided to interpret the Constitution to advance their social agenda. My guess is they just thought it was the reasonable and responsible view to take of the document.

Originally posted by NewGuy

I don't think you can do it. You can't read our founding documents correctly, apparently. Either that or you think they don't matter.

What is it in you that requires you to be a prick? I was trying to be civil. I have read the Constitution several times and understand it very well (I think). We just disagree with how it should be applied (and if it should be interpreted).

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
I wasn't arguing that the Bible proscribes homosexuality (I saw the cites). It clearly does. I was just making the point (and clarifying for my own edification, I suppose) that Jesus never explicitly discussed homosexuality in the Gospels.

Then here are a few key points:

He also never said anything about rape, incest or domestic violence.

Christ said that God created people "in the beginning" as male and female. He said marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as "one flesh". (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9). No other kind of union is mentioned.

When Jesus discussed sexual morality, He had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more." (John 8:11) He warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. (Matthew 5:28) And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.

Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God's wrath (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). All through the Old Testament, prophets clearly describe these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.

Christ was God in the flesh on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, which was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9: 18-21, John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning (John 1:1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere). So, Jesus was part of God as the laws were handed down through Moses to Israel and eventually to the whole world. This Old Testament law clearly prohibited homosexuality (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18 and elsewhere). The apostles understood this also, as shown by Paul's writing in Romans 1:24-27, Peter's in 2 Peter 2:4-22, and John's in Revelation 22:15.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Then here are a few key points:

He also never said anything about rape, incest or domestic violence.

Christ said that God created people "in the beginning" as male and female. He said marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as "one flesh". (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9). No other kind of union is mentioned.

When Jesus discussed sexual morality, He had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more." (John 8:11) He warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. (Matthew 5:28) And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.

Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God's wrath (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). All through the Old Testament, prophets clearly describe these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.

Christ was God in the flesh on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, which was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9: 18-21, John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning (John 1:1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere). So, Jesus was part of God as the laws were handed down through Moses to Israel and eventually to the whole world. This Old Testament law clearly prohibited homosexuality (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18 and elsewhere). The apostles understood this also, as shown by Paul's writing in Romans 1:24-27, Peter's in 2 Peter 2:4-22, and John's in Revelation 22:15.

OK. I wasn't suggesting that Jesus was pro-rape.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
We are not talking about overriding it, we are talking about interpreting. The Supreme Court is the institution that determines whether a law violates the Constitution, and to do so, they must determine what exactly the Constitution says and means.

AGAIN, show me one place where the Constitution says they have this power.

The Supreme Court has determined that even Freedom of Speech is not absolute.

Therefore going AGAINST the Constitution. You just said they don't do this.

One can't walk around trying to incite violence or mobs, threatening the lives of other citizens or the President, or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Yes, they can, accordinging to the Constitution.
As a criminal offense for not being resonable, the law would punish for being RESPONSIBLE buy charging multiple attempts of attempted manslaughter.

I think these are all very reasonable limits that have been placed on the Freedom of Speech.

Then according to our founding fathers, you deserve neither liberty nor security.

Other portions of the Constitution are vague in their mandates, and interpretation is required to understand what was meant.

Prove it. Before you try, you may want to read the thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4936
Words are often vague expressions of intention.



Whatever you think has resulted in the view that the Constitution needs to be interpreted, it is not illiteracy. Two hundred years of Supreme Court justices, most of them probably smarter than you or I, have felt it necessary. I also doubt that the Supreme Court in the 1790's and early 1800's decided to interpret the Constitution to advance their social agenda. My guess is they just thought it was the reasonable and responsible view to take of the document.



What is it in you that requires you to be a prick? I was trying to be civil. I have read the Constitution several times and understand it very well. We just disagree with how it should be applied (and if it should be interpreted). [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
AGAIN, show me one place where the Constitution says they have this power.

It is implicit in the document. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No law can contradict the Constitution and still be valid. If it were otherwise, the Constitution would have no meaning. Some party must determine when a law violates the Constitution (otherwise, again, the Constitution would have no power). Article Three of the Constitution rests the judicial powers with the Supreme Court and such inferior courts that Congress may establish. (There are very good reasons for the Court deciding this, as they are more immune from popular sentiment and are not responsible for passing or executing the very laws which may violate the Constitution) Thus it is the courts that judge whether a law violates the Constitution.

Originally posted by NewGuy

Yes, they can, accordinging to the Constitution.
As a criminal offense for not being resonable, the law would punish for being RESPONSIBLE buy charging multiple attempts of attempted manslaughter.

You fail to recognize the defensive application of the First Amendment. This is in fact the form in which it is most applied. If the government was free to punish the result of speech, but not the speech itself, what would prevent people from being prosecuted for speaking out against a political party when people heed the speech and vote against the dominant party, urging a non-violent demonstration when the speech prompts the demonstration to take place, etc. This is the same thing as infringing the freedom of speech itself (and could easily lead to tyranny) and this is what the First Amendment protects against. Someone would still have to determine when a criminal prosecution was allowed under the First Amendment and when it was not (whether the First Amendment applied). There is really no difference between prosecuting someone for yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre and prosecuting for causing anarchy by yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre. In either case, the Freedom of Speech either protects their right to yell or it doesn't. If it does, there should be no prosecution. If it doesn't, then the speech should be prohibited before injuries can occur (this is the approach currently applied).

Originally posted by NewGuy

Prove it. Before you try, you may want to read the thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4936

Here are a series of vague terms contained in the Constitution that require some interpretation:
1. unreasonable searches and seizures
2. just compensation
3. due process of law
4. speedy and public trial
5. Excessive bail
6. excessive fines imposed
7. cruel and unusual punishments

None of these statements are clear in and of themselves. What is speedy (1 week or 1 year)?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And it's a third quarter Rally by Reilly!!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
It is implicit in the document. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No law can contradict the Constitution and still be valid. If it were otherwise, the Constitution would have no meaning. Some party must determine when a law violates the Constitution (otherwise, again, the Constitution would have no power).

1. No, that is like saying you have to have a body of people interpreting rule books in football and baseball. There are not. Thare are referees to declaire what they see, not for "interpretation" of how rules will be applied. That would disintegrate integrity of the game due to lack of original intent or consistency.

2. Prove 1 place where the Constitution claims a body must exist, and who they are.

Article Three of the Constitution rests the judicial powers with the Supreme Court and such inferior courts that Congress may establish.

Really? Lets see:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That is the entire article 3. Nowhere there does there include anything giving them the power to declaire any Constitutionality of ANYTHING. In fact, the bold part above PROVES they have no authority even EQUALING or SURPASSING the Constitution.

Unless you can point out the contrary, you have just fictionally created your own imaginary constitution.

(There are very good reasons for the Court deciding this, as they are more immune from popular sentiment and are not responsible for passing or executing the very laws which may violate the Constitution) Thus it is the courts that judge whether a law violates the Constitution.

What are you talking about? Read the impeachment clauses.

You fail to recognize the defensive application of the First Amendment. This is in fact the form in which it is most applied. If the government was free to punish the result of speech, but not the speech itself, what would prevent people from being prosecuted for speaking out against a political party when people heed the speech and vote against the dominant party, urging a non-violent demonstration when the speech prompts the demonstration to take place, etc.

What? What are you getting at? How does that EVEN BECOME AN ISSUE when that is an impossibility? You just tried to reverse the tables and proved my point. You don't punish the result of free speech, you only punish for a crime that was comitted as a result of the speech. Since when is a vote a crime, or a peaceful demonstration a crime?

This is the same thing as infringing the freedom of speech itself (and could easily lead to tyranny) and this is what the First Amendment protects against.

So quit saying you agree to limits on it, and that you let someone else apply it conditionally.

Someone would still have to determine when a criminal prosecution was allowed under the First Amendment and when it was not (whether the First Amendment applied).

Again, no, they would not. Read the ammendment. NO LAW CAN AFFECT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

There is really no difference between prosecuting someone for yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre and prosecuting for causing anarchy by yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre. In either case, the Freedom of Speech either protects their right to yell or it doesn't. If it does, there should be no prosecution.

That is what I said. The only prosecution allowable is for intent by obvious result: IE trampling of people: Attempted manslaughter.

Juries then decide the intent, if it was there, wether the law is applied fairly, and then determine guilt or innocence. Since it is a jury by PEERS, it is all airtight isn't it?

YOU want no jury of peers, and a government variable of how your freedoms are applied. This is upside down of our entire Constitutional power structure.

Here are a series of vague terms contained in the Constitution that require some interpretation:
1. unreasonable searches and seizures
2. just compensation
3. due process of law
4. speedy and public trial
5. Excessive bail
6. excessive fines imposed
7. cruel and unusual punishments

None of these statements are clear in and of themselves. What is speedy (1 week or 1 year)?

Since you have a problem with context, read the thread and then give me what you dont understand 1 point at a time, and I will go through it like I did in the other thread. I don't think it does the board justice to be so blatantly obvious and redundant because you don't want to read the thread.

 

[Moi]

New Guy,

I've been a constitutional scholar for 20 odd of my 40 years on this earth. I live, eat and sleep it.

I disagree that there are no relevant areas where the constitution requires interpretation. The cases cited by Reilly are but a few.

Now, do I think that the Supreme Court is the only entity so charged? No, I think it's up to the entire judicial system to decide what's constitutional. Do I think the Supreme Court has erred in stating what is and is not protected by the constutition? Yes.

However, it's more than a bit disingenuous to declare that the judiciary is not authorized to interpret the constutition for that is exactly what they do. They explain the meaning of or present in understandable terms.