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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are ignoring the whole of the problems we have that stem from this kind of thing…

On the contrary, the problems manifest when we ignore the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law. What you advocate is mob rule, a chaotic and capricious ‘system’ of injustice.

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.

Please cite case law with regard to ‘impartial justice.’

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.

The bolded in incorrect. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

 

[Intense]

No offense, it is you that are misunderstanding the laws we live under.

None taken, as you are wrong. I've got a pretty good handle on the law, thank you.

We are living under the arbitrary interpretation of the Supreme Court, for better or worse. This is not original Design, but a corruption that happened early on, when we abandoned the perspective of 3 Equal Branches, in favor of Court Interpretation of 9 Person's no matter how far from reality, that Interpretation strays. Still, even that is repairable through Constitutional Amendment, which requires 66% of Congress to bring to the Floor for Debate, and 75% for approval. Remedy is Remedy.

Which is it you support again? Principle? Or maybe the Construct, which was purposed and created to serve that Principle? When there is a conflict between the two, where do you align yourself?

I never said I agree with the Court 100% of the time. I do agree with them this time, however, and in the instances when they rule against Constitutional intent, I stand on the side of the Constitutional intent. I think stare decisis is a double-edged sword and that it allows the Court to not have to face bad decisions made previously.

The Supreme Court is not at all perfect in my estimation.

Funny then how you arbitrarily defend Natural Law as being Between Each Individual and Their Maker, while denying mention of Our Maker Publicly, as if it is an intrusion on Separation between Church and State. God is Bigger than the Church, Einstein. Even Madison distinguished between God, Church, Individual, Group, Society, and Government. Too bad the Court was blind to it.

 

[Intense]

You are ignoring the whole of the problems we have that stem from this kind of thing…

On the contrary, the problems manifest when we ignore the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law. What you advocate is mob rule, a chaotic and capricious ‘system’ of injustice.

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.

Please cite case law with regard to ‘impartial justice.’

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.

The bolded in incorrect. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

The one universal Truth about Case Law is that we all gravitate to what supports the arbitrary flavor of the day while ignoring all that does not match up, that and cursing the Justices we disagree with in part or full.

 

[rightwinger]

Did society back her up? We would need a poll or a vote to find out that information now wouldn't we?

Oh you don't want that vote, because it might make you look bad if the opposite were to be the case.

No, we don't need a vote. We already know society backed her up and the banner was removed. It was not done because she was in the majority, it was done because she was right

The Banner being Donated, not Purchased by the School, convinces me otherwise. Was is paid for with Public or Private money? Would I have a problem with any group sponsoring such a thing, in a Community in which they lived? No. That is a difference between us. I have no issue with Public Display, under Free Will. Feel free to pray under your bed and in your closet. .... Boo!!!

The courts feel otherwise and they have been consistent since 1962. Schools can't hold public prayer and they can't display a public prayer either. Whether it was a gift or purchased with taxpayer dollars is irrelevant

 

[Intense]

No, we don't need a vote. We already know society backed her up and the banner was removed. It was not done because she was in the majority, it was done because she was right

The Banner being Donated, not Purchased by the School, convinces me otherwise. Was is paid for with Public or Private money? Would I have a problem with any group sponsoring such a thing, in a Community in which they lived? No. That is a difference between us. I have no issue with Public Display, under Free Will. Feel free to pray under your bed and in your closet. .... Boo!!!

The courts feel otherwise and they have been consistent since 1962. Schools can't hold public prayer and they can't display a public prayer either. Whether it was a gift or purchased with taxpayer dollars is irrelevant

Following your reasoning that is relevant until it is reversed. Care to bet on how many times that changes in the next 300 years?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If your child were a Christian in Dearborn Michigan, she would be offered the same protections from religious influences as that atheist child

If my son went to school in Dearborn, Michigan what protections would he need offered?



Exactly my point.

That young girl is not insisting that a banner declaring that there is no god be displayed, she is just insisting on a religious neutral environment

That depends on how you view it. As an atheist her "religion" is the absence of religion, thus she is being accommodated to practice those beliefs at the expense of the majority who don't share her views and are having expression suppressed.

If that were the case, any public area that has no religious symbols would be considered a pro-atheist area. An atheist is not pushing his beliefs in those areas. People have a right to not be subjected to others religious beliefs in a school environment

Look, we can go back and forth with this all day long, but the bottom line is this was never the intent of the so-called "Establishment Clause" and whether or not you're willing to admit it, I think you know that. Religion was displayed on public and government property for almost 200 years without any issue, including during the time of the men who actually wrote the Constitution. This didn't become an issue until activist judges under the guise of being "progressive" suddenly decided all on their own that this violated people's rights and the American people were too preoccupied in their own little bubbles to fight back against it before it was too late. Now we have these absurd decisions considered as precedent, even though no such intent ever existed.

 

[rightwinger]

The Banner being Donated, not Purchased by the School, convinces me otherwise. Was is paid for with Public or Private money? Would I have a problem with any group sponsoring such a thing, in a Community in which they lived? No. That is a difference between us. I have no issue with Public Display, under Free Will. Feel free to pray under your bed and in your closet. .... Boo!!!

The courts feel otherwise and they have been consistent since 1962. Schools can't hold public prayer and they can't display a public prayer either. Whether it was a gift or purchased with taxpayer dollars is irrelevant

Following your reasoning that is relevant until it is reversed. Care to bet on how many times that changes in the next 300 years?

OK

When the courts overturn prayer in public school we can start another thread on it

 

[rightwinger]

If my son went to school in Dearborn, Michigan what protections would he need offered?



Exactly my point.



That depends on how you view it. As an atheist her "religion" is the absence of religion, thus she is being accommodated to practice those beliefs at the expense of the majority who don't share her views and are having expression suppressed.

If that were the case, any public area that has no religious symbols would be considered a pro-atheist area. An atheist is not pushing his beliefs in those areas. People have a right to not be subjected to others religious beliefs in a school environment

Look, we can go back and forth with this all day long, but the bottom line is this was never the intent of the so-called "Establishment Clause" and whether or not you're willing to admit it, I think you know that. Religion was displayed on public and government property for almost 200 years without any issue, including during the time of the men who actually wrote the Constitution. This didn't become an issue until activist judges under the guise of being "progressive" suddenly decided all on their own that this violated people's rights and the American people were too preoccupied in their own little bubbles to fight back against it before it was too late. Now we have these absurd decisions considered as precedent, even though no such intent ever existed.

The Christian majority bullied this country for almost 200 years. To a great extent, they still do. That does not make it right

Freedom of religion also means Freedom "from" religion. A taxpayer has a right to send his child to public school without his child being forced to participate in prayer activities.
That banner is a public prayer and implies a government endorsement of religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The courts feel otherwise and they have been consistent since 1962. Schools can't hold public prayer and they can't display a public prayer either. Whether it was a gift or purchased with taxpayer dollars is irrelevant.

Correct.

Again, as we know from the Lemon Test, religious expression must have a secular purpose, not promote religion, and must not involve excessive government entanglement. Any religious activity that fails one of the ‘prongs’ of the test is un-Constitutional.

The banner clearly fails the Test and, in conjunction with the 2005 ruling, is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

The issue isn’t whether one agrees with the Supreme Court or not, or whether the Court is ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ but that the legal process be allowed to work free ‘from the vicissitudes of political controversy.’

 

[Crackerjack]

Funny then how you arbitrarily defend Natural Law as being Between Each Individual and Their Maker, while denying mention of Our Maker Publicly, as if it is an intrusion on Separation between Church and State. God is Bigger than the Church, Einstein. Even Madison distinguished between God, Church, Individual, Group, Society, and Government. Too bad the Court was blind to it.

Really? So if you can't post religious objects and phrases on property that doesn't belong to you, that's denying God? Your faith is so weak that you have to have it reaffirmed on public property?

Nothing I said has anything to do with how "big" God is, Einsten. The simple fact is that there are people out there who can believe in a Higher Power without finding the need to have religious stuff plastered all over property they don't own. I'm one of them, and apparently you aren't.

 

[beagle9]

This is why I'm trying to get you to read the link I sent you and to understand that our system is one of natural law. Your argument for rights by majority rule may win you the battle, but it will ultimately lose you the war. If you argue from a natural rights perspective, you will find that the rights you hold dear will be there regardless of petty political considerations like majorities and minorities. Think about what this line from the Declaration of Independence means:These rights are self-evident -- they don't need to be acknowledged by a majority. The Founders are saying, in the vernacular, "Hey, it's obvious, God gave us these rights that nobody can take away!"

Did he give this girl the right to abuse the 99% in that school, when she teamed with the ACLU, and attacked her school?

Majorities don't matter when it comes to natural law. We live under a natural law system. You're missing the forest for the trees here.

How come it is, that a majority matters in so many other areas of this nation upon the issues or cases brought up, but in or upon certain issues or certain cases it is restricted, otherwise to put it to a vote if need be ? I say that if the waters real muddy on an issue, then it should be cleared up by a vote always.

Is there any otherway to do it when truly think about it ?

 

[Againsheila]

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.

It's seems to me, if our forefathers had intended the constitution to ban religion from anything government, they wouldn't have set it up so congress starts with a prayer.

Not establishing a religion is not the same as allowing religion and I don't believe our forefathers would be happy that one girl and the aclu forced this school to remove a banner given to it by their 1963 graduation class regardless of the religious overtones.

 

[Crackerjack]

Did he give this girl the right to abuse the 99% in that school, when she teamed with the ACLU, and attacked her school?

Majorities don't matter when it comes to natural law. We live under a natural law system. You're missing the forest for the trees here.

How come it is, that a majority matters in so many other areas of this nation upon the issues or cases brought up, but in or upon certain issues or certain cases it is restricted, otherwise to put it to a vote if need be ? I say that if the waters real muddy on an issue, then it should be cleared up by a vote always.

Is there any otherway to do it when truly think about it ?

Majorities don't matter when it comes to rights. That's the only way to think about it if you recognize natural law.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

Yeah, we need more brats in America who say "to hell with the rest of you, I'm gonna force my beliefs on you!"

Yea, athism is a belief and they are much more forceful in their preaching than any Christian including the nuts like Jerry Falwell.

 

[Againsheila]

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

On the contrary, with the help of the ACLU, it was very easy. She just didn't tink of the consequences and they (the ACLU) didn't tell her.

 

[Crackerjack]

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.

Yeah, we need more brats in America who say "to hell with the rest of you, I'm gonna force my beliefs on you!"

Yea, athism is a belief and they are much more forceful in their preaching than any Christian including the nuts like Jerry Falwell.

How does nothing promote atheism? Please explain.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

So, all laws are good? Was slavery good? It was a law, and not by the majority, only 5% of this country owned slaves.

There is nothing in the constitution to ban religion, only to prevent the government from establishing one. You have no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion. The court was wrong in this case.

 

[beagle9]

Nothing highlights our freedom more than a 13 year old girl being able to stand up for her rights and have our society back her up

Did society back her up? We would need a poll or a vote to find out that information now wouldn't we?

Oh you don't want that vote, because it might make you look bad if the opposite were to be the case.

No, we don't need a vote. We already know society backed her up and the banner was removed. It was not done because she was in the majority, it was done because she was right

Or was it done through intimidation by a court order against the 99%, that which interpreted the law in the way that they see it or interpret it as, and this be it on any specific occasion or issue, yet going against the millions who may or would have seen it otherwise? I ask again, did society support her or were they against her ?

 

[Againsheila]

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?

The Constitution was never intended to grant you freedom from religion, only freedom OF religion. You don't have a right not to be offended.

 

[beagle9]

Or was it done through intimidation by a court order against the 99%, that which the court then interpreted the law in the way that it saw it or interpret it as, and this be it on any specific occasion or issue brought, yet going against the millions who may or would have seen it another way, otherwise all due to activism being found in that court ? I ask again, did society support her or were they against her ?