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

[Photonic]

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L8dxev3y58]Climategate Part 2 -Gaia Worship and The Formation of the New World Order - YouTube[/ame]

So you're a conspiracy nut. That explains a lot of things.

As to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is a parody religion to show people why their religion is just as crazy. Just change a few words and boom, they celebrate the same thing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights.

Your right to dictate to others what they may believe, Mullah Photo?

Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.

What laws?

You mean like;

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

Oh wait, that would be YOU violating the law in order to deny constitutional rights to infidels who fail to bow to your little religion, Mullah Photo..

Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.

You've done your best at proselyting, now you'll use force to ensure all worship as you do.

 

[Photonic]

I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights.

Your right to dictate to others what they may believe, Mullah Photo?

Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.

What laws?

You mean like;

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

Oh wait, that would be YOU violating the law in order to deny constitutional rights to infidels who fail to bow to your little religion, Mullah Photo..

Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.

You've done your best at proselyting, now you'll use force to ensure all worship as you do.

So set in your own belief that you can't see anything outside of it. I feel sorry for you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you're a conspiracy nut. That explains a lot of things.

I am, Mullah Photo?

As to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is a parody religion to show people why their religion is just as crazy. Just change a few words and boom, they celebrate the same thing.

Same kind of parody as you folk had of blacks, Jews, and other flavors of the month.

Your target varies, your methods don't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So set in your own belief that you can't see anything outside of it. I feel sorry for you.

What is *my* belief, Mullah Photo?

 

[Photonic]

So set in your own belief that you can't see anything outside of it. I feel sorry for you.

What is *my* belief, Mullah Photo?

What's mine?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Public sector employees are in general allowed religious expression provided it’s not in the context of a mandated statute or policy.


‘God bless you’ is perfectly fine; as with ‘God bless America,’ it’s not mandated policy.


That something is ‘historical’ doesn’t mitigate the fact it’s un-Constitutional. See: Lawrence v. Texas (2003).



The Court has held the Ten Commandments Constitutional when displayed on some pubic buildings, particularly in conjunction with other religious text.


No one ever said it was.


It doesn’t need to be, to be in violation.



The fault lies with the school district, they should have known the law.

Baaaaa Baaaaa

Tell me if this little delicate flower of a girl doesn't believe in god then how can she be so offended by an invocation of the deity?

The problem is not the gift of a sign that is more a part of school history than it was any mandated religious policy but the problem is with this girl. That she felt somehow her rights were violated is ludicrous. Speaking as an atheist, to be offended by that in which you believe to be nonexistent speaks more to your own inadequacies than to anything else.

All of you with a zero tolerance attitude ought to start thinking for yourself as zero tolerance = zero intelligence

I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights. Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.

Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.

What right exactly was being infringed upon?

No one's rights were violated here

 

[Photonic]

Baaaaa Baaaaa

Tell me if this little delicate flower of a girl doesn't believe in god then how can she be so offended by an invocation of the deity?

The problem is not the gift of a sign that is more a part of school history than it was any mandated religious policy but the problem is with this girl. That she felt somehow her rights were violated is ludicrous. Speaking as an atheist, to be offended by that in which you believe to be nonexistent speaks more to your own inadequacies than to anything else.

All of you with a zero tolerance attitude ought to start thinking for yourself as zero tolerance = zero intelligence

I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights. Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.

Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.

What right exactly was being infringed upon?

No one's rights were violated here

A prayer to the Christian God was displayed permanently in a building payed for by tax-payers, commissioned for creation by the administration, and then defended with tax-payer dollars.

What part about the government not respecting a particular religion don't you get? There is a reason they lost the ******* case, they were breaking the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What's mine?

You are what I call a "Charismatic Atheist." That radical branch of the faith that seeks absolute adherence by all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights. Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.

Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.

What right exactly was being infringed upon?

No one's rights were violated here

A prayer to the Christian God was displayed permanently in a building payed for by tax-payers, commissioned for creation by the administration, and then defended with tax-payer dollars.

What part about the government not respecting a particular religion don't you get? There is a reason they lost the ******* case, they were breaking the law.

Excuse me but the sign was NOT paid for by the taxpayers. Students raised that money and gifted the sign to the school.

And the constitution says nothing about respecting any religion.

The phrase is

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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There was no law enacted by congress that mandated that a sign be hung. How about the prohibiting the free exercise thereof part.

You seem to forget that in your snit.

This sign is nothing more than a historical document pertaining to the history of the school. That it invokes the deity is nothing more than a reflection of the time the school was founded and not some grand conspiracy to turn people into believers

Face it the whole thing was a cry for attention by a little girl so she could feel important and not some righteous indignation at the violation of one's rights because her rights were not violated at all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights. Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.

Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.

What right exactly was being infringed upon?

No one's rights were violated here

A prayer to the Christian God was displayed permanently in a building payed for by tax-payers, commissioned for creation by the administration, and then defended with tax-payer dollars.

What part about the government not respecting a particular religion don't you get? There is a reason they lost the ******* case, they were breaking the law.

You're such a ******* hypocrite. Until you file suit for every infraction of the law perpetrated by the government then you have not a leg on which to stand.

We should erase the word "creator" from the Declaration of Independence because the tax payers pay to preserve it right?

 

[Photonic]

What right exactly was being infringed upon?

No one's rights were violated here

A prayer to the Christian God was displayed permanently in a building payed for by tax-payers, commissioned for creation by the administration, and then defended with tax-payer dollars.

What part about the government not respecting a particular religion don't you get? There is a reason they lost the ******* case, they were breaking the law.

You're such a ******* hypocrite. Until you file suit for every infraction of the law perpetrated by the government then you have not a leg on which to stand.

We should erase the word "creator" from the Declaration of Independence because the tax payers pay to preserve it right?

Right over your head. Every bit of it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Right over your head. Every bit of it.

No, he understand it, and you, perfectly, Mullah Photo.

 

[Againsheila]

I know I said I was gonna stay out of this, but I just found this out:

The mural has been in the school since 1963 and a school committee said it was "historical" and "artistic."

It's not a "banner", it's a mural. Good God, she's ordered them to destroy a mural. Apparently public buildings can display a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in actual feces, but a MURAL in a public school with the words "our father" is prohibited. This really has gone too far. This isn't just a matter of taking down a banner, they are going to DESTROY this artwork. The school board is trying to decide if they should appeal. Probably because destorying artwork is as disgusting to them as it is to me. I wonder if this girl cheered when the Taliban brought down those Buddhist statues? While I was so outraged that the world let it happen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Tell me if this little delicate flower of a girl doesn't believe in god then how can she be so offended by an invocation of the deity?

You’ve obviously not read the entire thread, understandable given its length, so a recap is in order:

The girl is utterly irrelevant, as are her motives and intent – this has noting to do with being ‘offended.’ She filed suit, the district was caught out of compliance, its ignorance of the law no excuse.

The problem is not the gift of a sign that is more a part of school history than it was any mandated religious policy but the problem is with this girl. That she felt somehow her rights were violated is ludicrous. Speaking as an atheist, to be offended by that in which you believe to be nonexistent speaks more to your own inadequacies than to anything else.

All of you with a zero tolerance attitude ought to start thinking for yourself as zero tolerance = zero intelligence.

None of this makes any sense and doesn’t address the case or the law.

What right exactly was being infringed upon?

No one's rights were violated here.

The right of freedom of conscience is violated, the state violates the wall of separation between church and State:

Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say -- [p430] that the people's religions must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office. Under that Amendment's prohibition against governmental establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.

Engel v. Vitale

This is the settled law of the land, that you disagree with it is irrelevant, that you continue to fail to understand it means you should seek out a jurist to explain it better than I.

I know I said I was gonna stay out of this, but I just found this out:

The mural has been in the school since 1963 and a school committee said it was "historical" and "artistic."

It's not a "banner", it's a mural. Good God, she's ordered them to destroy a mural. Apparently public buildings can display a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in actual feces, but a MURAL in a public school with the words "our father" is prohibited. This really has gone too far. This isn't just a matter of taking down a banner, they are going to DESTROY this artwork. The school board is trying to decide if they should appeal. Probably because destorying artwork is as disgusting to them as it is to me. I wonder if this girl cheered when the Taliban brought down those Buddhist statues? While I was so outraged that the world let it happen.

Your participation is always welcome – but the reasons why all the points in your post are irrelevant and incorrect have already been addressed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me if this little delicate flower of a girl doesn't believe in god then how can she be so offended by an invocation of the deity?

You’ve obviously not read the entire thread, understandable given its length, so a recap is in order:

The girl is utterly irrelevant, as are her motives and intent – this has noting to do with being ‘offended.’ She filed suit, the district was caught out of compliance, its ignorance of the law no excuse.

The problem is not the gift of a sign that is more a part of school history than it was any mandated religious policy but the problem is with this girl. That she felt somehow her rights were violated is ludicrous. Speaking as an atheist, to be offended by that in which you believe to be nonexistent speaks more to your own inadequacies than to anything else.

All of you with a zero tolerance attitude ought to start thinking for yourself as zero tolerance = zero intelligence.

None of this makes any sense and doesn’t address the case or the law.



The right of freedom of conscience is violated, the state violates the wall of separation between church and State:

Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say -- [p430] that the people's religions must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office. Under that Amendment's prohibition against governmental establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.

Engel v. Vitale

This is the settled law of the land, that you disagree with it is irrelevant, that you continue to fail to understand it means you should seek out a jurist to explain it better than I.

I know I said I was gonna stay out of this, but I just found this out:

The mural has been in the school since 1963 and a school committee said it was "historical" and "artistic."

It's not a "banner", it's a mural. Good God, she's ordered them to destroy a mural. Apparently public buildings can display a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in actual feces, but a MURAL in a public school with the words "our father" is prohibited. This really has gone too far. This isn't just a matter of taking down a banner, they are going to DESTROY this artwork. The school board is trying to decide if they should appeal. Probably because destorying artwork is as disgusting to them as it is to me. I wonder if this girl cheered when the Taliban brought down those Buddhist statues? While I was so outraged that the world let it happen.

Your participation is always welcome – but the reasons why all the points in your post are irrelevant and incorrect have already been addressed.

Where is the right of freedom of conscience listed in the Constitution. i think I missed that one.

If it is such an egregious crime to display anything with religious overtones in a public place then should we not be filing suit for changing the money supply and erasing any and all historical documents that may mention a deity?

After all we're violating someone's right of conscience.

 

[freedombecki]

I just think this is bad to tell a school to remove tenets of people's faith from its halls.

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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That judge ruled against American religion by suppressing that particular expression.

I'm sick of judges destroying the Constitution our Christian founders set in place, and I'd like them to resign the bench voluntarily.

 

[InDoctriNation]

I have not read this entire thread so I don't know if this question has been posed, but I'd love to know how all the Christians outraged with this story would react if it was a Muslim prayer mural instead of a Christian one. The question is of course rhetorical, because I already know that if a Muslim prayer display existed in a public school in the US most all of you would be screaming at the top of your lungs for it to be removed. Religious displays in public areas is a right, as long as it's your religion, right?

 

[Photonic]

I just think this is bad to tell a school to remove tenets of people's faith from its halls.

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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That judge ruled against American religion by suppressing that particular expression.

I'm sick of judges destroying the Constitution our Christian founders set in place, and I'd like them to resign the bench voluntarily.

As Thomas Jefferson himself said: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

[Againsheila]

I have not read this entire thread so I don't know if this question has been posed, but I'd love to know how all the Christians outraged with this story would react if it was a Muslim prayer mural instead of a Christian one. The question is of course rhetorical, because I already know that if a Muslim prayer display existed in a public school in the US most all of you would be screaming at the top of your lungs for it to be removed. Religious displays in public areas is a right, as long as it's your religion, right?

I've already said, I wouldn't care. Now that I know it's a MURAL and not a banner, I'm even more outraged. And no, if it was Muslim, I wouldn't care.

If my daughter came home and told me "There's a muslim prayer on the wall at school so I'm gonna become a muslim"...I'd simply look at her like she was nuts. You don't become a muslim because you see a prayer on a wall, you don't become a Christian because you see a prayer on a wall. The truth is, the bratty girl was offended by the prayer, she wasn't influenced by it at all, which is why she went to the aclu and got help to have it removed from the school. She's an advocate for athiests, she admits this, yet she has fought to remove a mural from a school rather than to removed from some state constitutions where it says athiests can't run for office. She's forcing her beliefs on everyone she can.

A mural...good grief. Bet if it was that picture of the vigin mother with feces on it, she would have fought to keep it in the school.