An Athiest Student as she has claimed, brings a lawsuit with the help of the ACLU?

[beagle9]

Look beagle9, it's painfully obvious you're shooting from the hip here and that you don't understand that which you criticize. I'm going to do you a solid and help alleviate that problem. Please see the below website:

Introduction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

This is a website put up and maintained by a law professor that basically hits the high points of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Now, if you wish to continue to engage in empty platitudes and random accusations, that is your right, but you will probably only be met with same. However, if you would like to have a reasoned, intelligent conversation regarding what the Constitution says and how it has been interpreted thus far, you will have a much better conversation with the people on this site about this subject. Because, and I mean no offense, you're talking at a different level than certain of us here on this thread, and you really haven't done anything to advance your position to this point. Just saying "the judges were wrong" is a conclusion; supporting it with articulate, specific facts may get you somewhere.

Really, I'm not trying to insult or belittle you. I'm just trying to give you the tools you need to articulate your opinion on a subject for which you obviously have a passion.

As you know, it apears that there is this grave weakness found in the First Amendment between the two clauses, in which has been exploited and left in confusion by those who wish to confuse and destroy this nation (either with that weakness that is found between these two clashing clauses), or not destroy the nation with the clash being found. So I see that these clashing points are being found between the "Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause there of, where as this has left the door wide open for continued interpretation by whom ever, and at any given time I'm guessing, and so I'm guessing also that it may be found, that we are just letting the best mouth piece at any given time win, where as we all then move on from there.

Now here we are at a turning point once again, and all due to this weakness or confusion found between the two clauses that are wide open for continued interpretation, we are in a pickle again.. Now everyone is weighing in on the matter in which has brought up this First Amendment, so it's let the best mouthpiece win again I'm guessing ???

Maybe this is the very reason we should allow for a majority to record their vote on the matter, where as the majority would be allowed to weigh in heavily with that vote. Why? This would then allow for the First Amendment to be representitive of the generation who would vote either one way or the other on these matters, which are matters we continually find ourselves engauged in throughout time, so when we bring up or concern ourselves with this Amendment on such an issue or issues, it would take the confusion out of the situation for our generation lived hopefully, but even so it would be left for another generation to vote upon again.

Of course the vote would be attempted to be supressed by those who (even if are in a minority), would try and stop if thought that the vote will change this against them (or) would turn the tides against them, so we don't get that vote as needed now do we?

In summary - Due to the clash between the two clauses, a majority vote must be taken on such matters, and this in order to represent the generation at hand, as to their interpretation of these matters as decided upon with that vote.

What a mess, but not really if we operate in the right way in this nation.

You didn't read anything on the website I suggested, did you?

Yes I read, and I am still reading, but the two clauses seemed the most important I noticed, because it gets right to the heart of the problem doesn't it?

 

[Crackerjack]

As you know, it apears that there is this grave weakness found in the First Amendment between the two clauses, in which has been exploited and left in confusion by those who wish to confuse and destroy this nation (either with that weakness that is found between these two clashing clauses), or not destroy the nation with the clash being found. So I see that these clashing points are being found between the "Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause there of, where as this has left the door wide open for continued interpretation by whom ever, and at any given time I'm guessing, and so I'm guessing also that it may be found, that we are just letting the best mouth piece at any given time win, where as we all then move on from there.

Now here we are at a turning point once again, and all due to this weakness or confusion found between the two clauses that are wide open for continued interpretation, we are in a pickle again.. Now everyone is weighing in on the matter in which has brought up this First Amendment, so it's let the best mouthpiece win again I'm guessing ???

Maybe this is the very reason we should allow for a majority to record their vote on the matter, where as the majority would be allowed to weigh in heavily with that vote. Why? This would then allow for the First Amendment to be representitive of the generation who would vote either one way or the other on these matters, which are matters we continually find ourselves engauged in throughout time, so when we bring up or concern ourselves with this Amendment on such an issue or issues, it would take the confusion out of the situation for our generation lived hopefully, but even so it would be left for another generation to vote upon again.

Of course the vote would be attempted to be supressed by those who (even if are in a minority), would try and stop if thought that the vote will change this against them (or) would turn the tides against them, so we don't get that vote as needed now do we?

In summary - Due to the clash between the two clauses, a majority vote must be taken on such matters, and this in order to represent the generation at hand, as to their interpretation of these matters as decided upon with that vote.

What a mess, but not really if we operate in the right way in this nation.

You didn't read anything on the website I suggested, did you?

Yes I read, and I am still reading, but the two clauses seemed the most important I noticed, because it gets right to the heart of the problem doesn't it?

That's why I sent you that portion of the course.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Now here we are at a turning point once again, and all due to this weakness or confusion found between the two clauses…

There is no ‘weakness or confusion,’ it’s settled law: the Constitution establishes a separation of church and State, they are not to be conjoined.

The only confusion exists with those who don’t understand the case law. This has noting to do with ‘being offended,’ or the ‘minority dictating to the majority,’ as in a Republic we’re subject only to the rule of law, not men.

As an aside, the girl in the case should be commended, she demonstrated courage and conviction, she stayed true to her principles. We need more young people like her, and more Americans like her, who have an accurate understanding of what our Nation and its Constitution are about.

 

[beagle9]

Why? It was the school system’s failure to follow the law – whether they were ignorant of it or not. Why should she ‘feel horrible’ about obeying the Constitution?

There is a huge problem with the intepretation of the constitution these days, where as the devils have been studying that document in order to destroy us with it, just as they have been studying the Bible in hopes to derail us with a new interpretation of it as well, but for those who are strong, we can see past it all, and so we look upon all of this now in wonderment of... I really do feel sorry for our garndchildren these days, because as we see right now with our own children in this world, they are lost and getting more lost by the minute in this new world of thinking going on now. Strengthen that which ramains sayeth the Lord, for the time is drawing near.

Removing prayer from school was decided in 1963. It is nothing new. If you want your child to pray in school, send him to a Christian school

Yes you are right, if one can afford that, but for those who have to go to public schools, why can't there be a consensus among the parents and the staff in that public school, to give the whole student body in a majority, an experience there in which is suitable for that school, the culture existing within the area, and the wants of the citizens, staff and community without government intrusion?

 

[Crackerjack]

As an aside, the girl in the case should be commended, she demonstrated courage and conviction, she stayed true to her principles. We need more young people like her, and more Americans like her, who have an accurate understanding of what our Nation and its Constitution are about.

It wasn't easy to do, I'm sure.

Threats against RI atheist teen being investigated - Boston.com

 

[beagle9]

Did this actually happen at your high school, Beagle?

Nope, alot worse happened at my public highschool, but it is a long drawn out story that will need a new topic created in order to explain....yikes

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes you are right, if one can afford that, but for those who have to go to public schools, why can't there be a consensus among the parents and the staff in that public school, to give the whole student body in a majority, an experience there in which is suitable for that school, the culture existing within the area, and the wants of the citizens, staff and community without government intrusion?

Because rights are not determined by consensus, and rights and the law must be applied consistently among all cultures, comminutes, counties/parishes, and the states.

 

[beagle9]

A broader picture of the constitution being upheld? Is that really such a bad thing?

Broader, meaning your added interpretation of it?

My added interpretation of it being a reality you don't like, but can't come up with an adequate reason or explanation of why the contrary should be true.

The reasons are right in front of you daily, where as we are seeing the reality and the abuse that which is caused because of these specific instances, yet this abuse shouldnot be, but due to the confusion on these matters it is and will continue..

 

[rightwinger]

There is a huge problem with the intepretation of the constitution these days, where as the devils have been studying that document in order to destroy us with it, just as they have been studying the Bible in hopes to derail us with a new interpretation of it as well, but for those who are strong, we can see past it all, and so we look upon all of this now in wonderment of... I really do feel sorry for our garndchildren these days, because as we see right now with our own children in this world, they are lost and getting more lost by the minute in this new world of thinking going on now. Strengthen that which ramains sayeth the Lord, for the time is drawing near.

Removing prayer from school was decided in 1963. It is nothing new. If you want your child to pray in school, send him to a Christian school

Yes you are right, if one can afford that, but for those who have to go to public schools, why can't there be a consensus among the parents and the staff in that public school, to give the whole student body in a majority, an experience there in which is suitable for that school, the culture existing within the area, and the wants of the citizens, staff and community without government intrusion?

If you can't afford a Christian school, why not teach Christian values at home rather than force them on non-Christians simply because you have them out voted?

 

[beagle9]

Look beagle9, it's painfully obvious you're shooting from the hip here and that you don't understand that which you criticize. I'm going to do you a solid and help alleviate that problem. Please see the below website:

Introduction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

This is a website put up and maintained by a law professor that basically hits the high points of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Now, if you wish to continue to engage in empty platitudes and random accusations, that is your right, but you will probably only be met with same. However, if you would like to have a reasoned, intelligent conversation regarding what the Constitution says and how it has been interpreted thus far, you will have a much better conversation with the people on this site about this subject. Because, and I mean no offense, you're talking at a different level than certain of us here on this thread, and you really haven't done anything to advance your position to this point. Just saying "the judges were wrong" is a conclusion; supporting it with articulate, specific facts may get you somewhere.

Really, I'm not trying to insult or belittle you. I'm just trying to give you the tools you need to articulate your opinion on a subject for which you obviously have a passion.

As you know, it apears that there is this grave weakness found in the First Amendment between the two clauses, in which has been exploited and left in confusion by those who wish to confuse and destroy this nation (either with that weakness that is found between these two clashing clauses), or not destroy the nation with the clash being found. So I see that these clashing points are being found between the "Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause there of, where as this has left the door wide open for continued interpretation by whom ever, and at any given time I'm guessing, and so I'm guessing also that it may be found, that we are just letting the best mouth piece at any given time win, where as we all then move on from there.

Now here we are at a turning point once again, and all due to this weakness or confusion found between the two clauses that are wide open for continued interpretation, we are in a pickle again.. Now everyone is weighing in on the matter in which has brought up this First Amendment, so it's let the best mouthpiece win again I'm guessing ???

Maybe this is the very reason we should allow for a majority to record their vote on the matter, where as the majority would be allowed to weigh in heavily with that vote. Why? This would then allow for the First Amendment to be representitive of the generation who would vote either one way or the other on these matters, which are matters we continually find ourselves engauged in throughout time, so when we bring up or concern ourselves with this Amendment on such an issue or issues, it would take the confusion out of the situation for our generation lived hopefully, but even so it would be left for another generation to vote upon again.

Of course the vote would be attempted to be supressed by those who (even if are in a minority), would try and stop if thought that the vote will change this against them (or) would turn the tides against them, so we don't get that vote as needed now do we?

In summary - Due to the clash between the two clauses, a majority vote must be taken on such matters, and this in order to represent the generation at hand, as to their interpretation of these matters as decided upon with that vote.

What a mess, but not really if we operate in the right way in this nation.

Your interpretation os the first amendment is just plain scary

You actually favor VOTING on which rights others are allowed to have? Where would civil rights have been if people could vote on which rights blacks should have? The majority of Christians can vote on whether a mosque should be allowed to be built? Non-Christians should be forced to participate in Christian activities because you VOTED on it?

I am so glad that my America is nothing like the America you want us to be

And what kind of America do we have now by your standards ? That is scary also, but we have to deal with it don't we?

 

[Intense]

Yes you are right, if one can afford that, but for those who have to go to public schools, why can't there be a consensus among the parents and the staff in that public school, to give the whole student body in a majority, an experience there in which is suitable for that school, the culture existing within the area, and the wants of the citizens, staff and community without government intrusion?

Because rights are not determined by consensus, and rights and the law must be applied consistently among all cultures, comminutes, counties/parishes, and the states.

This Nation has yet to learn Impartiality, Impartial Justice. Sorry Charlie, that's a fail. It ain't happening. There is little Administration without Exemption, Waiver, or Immunity. In Theory We are a Nation of Laws, in Reality, we bow to the highest bidder. The Hypocrisy Of the Laws themselves, are their own witness against them.

If We were a Nation of Impartial Laws, Every mistake would be wiped clean, and the obstructions addressed and removed. You talk of Free Will, yet you have no concept of what it is, you know only conformity, and how to obey.

 

[beagle9]

Yes you are right, if one can afford that, but for those who have to go to public schools, why can't there be a consensus among the parents and the staff in that public school, to give the whole student body in a majority, an experience there in which is suitable for that school, the culture existing within the area, and the wants of the citizens, staff and community without government intrusion?

Because rights are not determined by consensus, and rights and the law must be applied consistently among all cultures, comminutes, counties/parishes, and the states.

You are ignoring the whole of the problems we have that stem from this kind of thing, in which we have been having now with the failed public school system to date, and is now the reasoning for what has now been put upon the table in regards to freedom of choice, as to either go to charter schools and/or etc.

There is tremendous failure and abuse caused by people who defend this sort of thing going on in the system, regardless of the reality of the situation it causes on the ground, but who cares about our children failing and being abused, just as long as the devils keep us towing the line and living with the status quoe of failure.

 

[beagle9]

Yes you are right, if one can afford that, but for those who have to go to public schools, why can't there be a consensus among the parents and the staff in that public school, to give the whole student body in a majority, an experience there in which is suitable for that school, the culture existing within the area, and the wants of the citizens, staff and community without government intrusion?

Because rights are not determined by consensus, and rights and the law must be applied consistently among all cultures, comminutes, counties/parishes, and the states.

This Nation has yet to learn Impartiality, Impartial Justice. Sorry Charlie, that's a fail. It ain't happening. There is little Administration without Exemption, Waiver, or Immunity. In Theory We are a Nation of Laws, in Reality, we bow to the highest bidder. The Hypocrisy Of the Laws themselves, are their own witness against them.

If We were a Nation of Impartial Laws, Every mistake would be wiped clean, and the obstructions addressed and removed. You talk of Free Will, yet you have no concept of what it is, you know only conformity, and how to obey.

Good points... I agree

 

[Intense]

Unalienable Rights come from Our Creator. It is for Government, by the Consent of the Governed to Recognize, to Establish, and to Defend them. In Our Republic, it is the Will of the People, the Super Majority that determines in the end, once we get past the games and manipulation.

 

[Crackerjack]

Unalienable Rights come from Our Creator. It is for Government, by the Consent of the Governed to Recognize, to Establish, and to Defend them. In Our Republic, it is the Will of the People, the Super Majority that determines in the end, once we get past the games and manipulation.

I believe that is the first time I've seen someone argue for natural law and positive law in the same breath.

 

[Intense]

Unalienable Rights come from Our Creator. It is for Government, by the Consent of the Governed to Recognize, to Establish, and to Defend them. In Our Republic, it is the Will of the People, the Super Majority that determines in the end, once we get past the games and manipulation.

I believe that is the first time I've seen someone argue for natural law and positive law in the same breath.

Check your premise.

 

[Intense]

Unalienable Rights come from Our Creator. It is for Government, by the Consent of the Governed to Recognize, to Establish, and to Defend them. In Our Republic, it is the Will of the People, the Super Majority that determines in the end, once we get past the games and manipulation.

I believe that is the first time I've seen someone argue for natural law and positive law in the same breath.

The Second Treatise of Civil Government
1690

John Locke
1632-1704

Introduction
CHAP. I.
CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature.
CHAP. III. Of the State of War.
CHAP. IV. Of Slavery.
CHAP. V. Of Property.
CHAP. VI. Of Paternal Power.
CHAP. VII. Of Political or Civil Society.
CHAP. VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies.
CHAP. IX. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government.
CHAP. X. Of the Forms of a Common-wealth.
CHAP. XI. Of the Extent of the Legislative Power.
CHAP. XII. Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIII. Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIV. Of Prerogative.
CHAP. XV. Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power, considered together.
CHAP. XVI. Of Conquest.
CHAP. XVII. Of Usurpation.
CHAP. XVIII. Of Tyranny.
CHAP. XIX. Of the Dissolution of Government.
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

 

[rightwinger]

As you know, it apears that there is this grave weakness found in the First Amendment between the two clauses, in which has been exploited and left in confusion by those who wish to confuse and destroy this nation (either with that weakness that is found between these two clashing clauses), or not destroy the nation with the clash being found. So I see that these clashing points are being found between the "Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause there of, where as this has left the door wide open for continued interpretation by whom ever, and at any given time I'm guessing, and so I'm guessing also that it may be found, that we are just letting the best mouth piece at any given time win, where as we all then move on from there.

Now here we are at a turning point once again, and all due to this weakness or confusion found between the two clauses that are wide open for continued interpretation, we are in a pickle again.. Now everyone is weighing in on the matter in which has brought up this First Amendment, so it's let the best mouthpiece win again I'm guessing ???

Maybe this is the very reason we should allow for a majority to record their vote on the matter, where as the majority would be allowed to weigh in heavily with that vote. Why? This would then allow for the First Amendment to be representitive of the generation who would vote either one way or the other on these matters, which are matters we continually find ourselves engauged in throughout time, so when we bring up or concern ourselves with this Amendment on such an issue or issues, it would take the confusion out of the situation for our generation lived hopefully, but even so it would be left for another generation to vote upon again.

Of course the vote would be attempted to be supressed by those who (even if are in a minority), would try and stop if thought that the vote will change this against them (or) would turn the tides against them, so we don't get that vote as needed now do we?

In summary - Due to the clash between the two clauses, a majority vote must be taken on such matters, and this in order to represent the generation at hand, as to their interpretation of these matters as decided upon with that vote.

What a mess, but not really if we operate in the right way in this nation.

Your interpretation os the first amendment is just plain scary

You actually favor VOTING on which rights others are allowed to have? Where would civil rights have been if people could vote on which rights blacks should have? The majority of Christians can vote on whether a mosque should be allowed to be built? Non-Christians should be forced to participate in Christian activities because you VOTED on it?

I am so glad that my America is nothing like the America you want us to be

And what kind of America do we have now by your standards ? That is scary also, but we have to deal with it don't we?

I was around in 1963. We have a much more moral America

In 1963

- Americans were spitting on black schoolchildren for trying to go to a public school
- Gays were afraid to admit their homosexuality because they could be beaten and police would do nothing about it
- Women could be beaten by their husbands and it was shrugged off as a domestic issue
- Women were openly harassed in the workplace
- Business could openly dump toxic chemicals in our air and rivers
- Christians would force non-Christian children to participate in christian prayer
- We assassinated our president in front of his wife

 

[Crackerjack]

Unalienable Rights come from Our Creator. It is for Government, by the Consent of the Governed to Recognize, to Establish, and to Defend them. In Our Republic, it is the Will of the People, the Super Majority that determines in the end, once we get past the games and manipulation.

I believe that is the first time I've seen someone argue for natural law and positive law in the same breath.

The Second Treatise of Civil Government
1690

John Locke
1632-1704

Introduction
CHAP. I.
CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature.
CHAP. III. Of the State of War.
CHAP. IV. Of Slavery.
CHAP. V. Of Property.
CHAP. VI. Of Paternal Power.
CHAP. VII. Of Political or Civil Society.
CHAP. VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies.
CHAP. IX. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government.
CHAP. X. Of the Forms of a Common-wealth.
CHAP. XI. Of the Extent of the Legislative Power.
CHAP. XII. Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIII. Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIV. Of Prerogative.
CHAP. XV. Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power, considered together.
CHAP. XVI. Of Conquest.
CHAP. XVII. Of Usurpation.
CHAP. XVIII. Of Tyranny.
CHAP. XIX. Of the Dissolution of Government.
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Great book. You should read it sometime.

 

[beagle9]

Removing prayer from school was decided in 1963. It is nothing new. If you want your child to pray in school, send him to a Christian school

Yes you are right, if one can afford that, but for those who have to go to public schools, why can't there be a consensus among the parents and the staff in that public school, to give the whole student body in a majority, an experience there in which is suitable for that school, the culture existing within the area, and the wants of the citizens, staff and community without government intrusion?

If you can't afford a Christian school, why not teach Christian values at home rather than force them on non-Christians simply because you have them out voted?

Ok, and if there is a consensus among the parents, faculty, and the children to not be abused by one who wants to abuse, and whom can do this for some rediculous confusion that exist within a statute or law, so it then protects her against the majority who see things otherwise, well then what next I ask?

Should she get her way against the majority who are in that school (turning it upside down for all 99% of them there), and for whom do see it otherwise, or should she be asked to leave the school if she is offended by the teachings there, the art, expression of art, beliefs, grading systems, busing systems, faculty make up, activities in which that school supports along with the 99% support of those things mentioned? Come on now, because this is exactly what we are talking about here, and is at stake here with this kind of stuff, so think before you answer. Oh and try to think with an open mind for a change please...