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

[beagle9]

So are "Whites only" signs

They came down in 1963 also

Typical talking point used by the left when ever they want to make a statement, where as they try and tie racism into everything, in order to highjack the power that is found in the resolve of racism, to then cross that power over into other subjects in which have nothing to do with racism, but in their mind gives them that same power to win the debate or conversation over with the use of that power.

This is an old tactic now, and no one is buying into it any longer... Nice try though!

It doesn't tie segregation to prayer in school

It ties two archaic practices from the 60s that we have since moved past

Who is we? The minority view who uses judges to empower that view against the moral majority?

 

[beagle9]

i wonder how they'd feel if their kid's teacher explained that the messiah hasn't come yet and that jesus didn't fulfill the prophesies.

somehow, i suspect they wouldn't be so thrilled about religion mixing with education at that point.

i say, as always, if you can't spend 8 hours a day without praying, you should be in a parochial school. it's really that simple.

If the majorities will was honored as it should have been in this nation on these subjects over the years, we would not have to worry about a school teaching or ever trying what you just hypothetically suggested they would on our children, but since that has not been the case anylonger in America, I don't doubt anything that will be tried next upon our children in this nation, and yes I am sure we wouldn't like it along with all the other things we don't like that is going on against us/we the majority in this nation right now.

This is the United States

We look out for the rights of the minority. It was established in something we call the Constitution

Over and above the majority upon every issue brought?

 

[Crackerjack]

The old tactic as is used, seperate the culprit from the crime by the defense, in order to somehow fool the jury upon this tactic as is used in the way that it was just now by you.

Are you a radical leftist defense lawyer by chance? If so, you are probably one of those who would defend Jeffery Dalmer against his victims families in court now wouldn't you?

She is no Jeffery Dalmer, but her defense team is acting in her defense as if she is some kind of high profile case, when all she is, is just a lone student who has been picked up by the ACLU, for whom used her (IMHO) to try and defeat Christianity in America one more time, by adding just one more knotch upon their belts in such cases as they so choose to represent these days.

Yeah, you have no problem labeling people without knowing anything about them either, do ya?

This decision was made at an appellate court, by a judge, applying precedent. No jury was involved at this stage.

 

[beagle9]

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

Tyranny of the majority is the same as tyranny of the minority....both are still tyranny. 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

Ok, then why didn't she ask for something that she believe in be displayed, and then let a vote decide whether it should be or not be displayed per her peers and fellow students in the situation ? I don't buy your excuse on this, so sorry...

Because she does not want to force her religious beliefs on someone else and expects the same courtesy

So she sues, and imposes her beliefs on many against their will, but we seem to be in denial on that one for some reason now aren't we?

 

[Crackerjack]

Ok, then why didn't she ask for something that she believe in be displayed, and then let a vote decide whether it should be or not be displayed per her peers and fellow students in the situation ? I don't buy your excuse on this, so sorry...

Because she does not want to force her religious beliefs on someone else and expects the same courtesy

So she sues, and imposes her beliefs on many against their will, but we seem to be in denial on that one for some reason now aren't we?

What belief did she impose?

Answer - none.

 

[rightwinger]

Typical talking point used by the left when ever they want to make a statement, where as they try and tie racism into everything, in order to highjack the power that is found in the resolve of racism, to then cross that power over into other subjects in which have nothing to do with racism, but in their mind gives them that same power to win the debate or conversation over with the use of that power.

This is an old tactic now, and no one is buying into it any longer... Nice try though!

It doesn't tie segregation to prayer in school

It ties two archaic practices from the 60s that we have since moved past

Who is we? The minority view who uses judges to empower that view against the moral majority?

We being ......We the people of the United States

 

[rightwinger]

Ok, then why didn't she ask for something that she believe in be displayed, and then let a vote decide whether it should be or not be displayed per her peers and fellow students in the situation ? I don't buy your excuse on this, so sorry...

Because she does not want to force her religious beliefs on someone else and expects the same courtesy

So she sues, and imposes her beliefs on many against their will, but we seem to be in denial on that one for some reason now aren't we?

She didn't impose her belief

She said you are not allowed to impose your belief on me

 

[beagle9]

The majority does not define rights for everyone else.

If the majority chose to repeal the First Amendment, you would be bitching and moaning about being persecuted.

Nor does the minority define rights for everyone, but in this case just one did with the help of an idiot out of touch (with the majority) judge, and the out of whack commie ACLU..

Have you read the Constitution recently? It talks about the rights of people, not of majorities and/or minorities.

Well how are these so called rights of people aquired then, if not by a consensus among the people who then establish those rights by a consensus found in a majority?

 

[Crackerjack]

You use lables, even though you know not who I am or anything about me, cept what you see here in a few words as spoken,

I know enough about your opinions to label you a Dominionist, so stop complaining.

but I will say this to you, that if this nation continues to use the corrupt tactics that it has been using to get this nation to where it is today, then the silenced majority will not be heard at this election either. Why(?), because the vote will be compromised with all the games that the devil who now resides in certain powerful people, does know far to well these days, and so the real majority are pushed back again in this nation, as the nation will decline futher and further as a result of.

I don't t hink it is hopeless, but it might be....B/

So you basically say the elections that you win are because the majority was heard, and the ones that you lose are because of a conspiracy. Do you recognize how ridiculous that sounds?

So you are basically saying that me as a white man along with the blacks who are in this nation, are somehow ignorant when it comes to the knowledge learned over time about election fraud, in which has gone on or is still going on in this nation to some degree?

Apparently you don't realize how ridiculous that sounds. Why am I not surprised?

 

[rightwinger]

If the majorities will was honored as it should have been in this nation on these subjects over the years, we would not have to worry about a school teaching or ever trying what you just hypothetically suggested they would on our children, but since that has not been the case anylonger in America, I don't doubt anything that will be tried next upon our children in this nation, and yes I am sure we wouldn't like it along with all the other things we don't like that is going on against us/we the majority in this nation right now.

This is the United States

We look out for the rights of the minority. It was established in something we call the Constitution

Over and above the majority upon every issue brought?

Yup

 

[Crackerjack]

Nor does the minority define rights for everyone, but in this case just one did with the help of an idiot out of touch (with the majority) judge, and the out of whack commie ACLU..

Have you read the Constitution recently? It talks about the rights of people, not of majorities and/or minorities.

Well how are these so called rights of people aquired then, if not by a consensus among the people who then establish those rights by a consensus found in a majority?

You're born with them.

The Constitution is a document predicated on the "natural rights" paradigm.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Sound familiar?

 

[rightwinger]

Nor does the minority define rights for everyone, but in this case just one did with the help of an idiot out of touch (with the majority) judge, and the out of whack commie ACLU..

Have you read the Constitution recently? It talks about the rights of people, not of majorities and/or minorities.

Well how are these so called rights of people aquired then, if not by a consensus among the people who then establish those rights by a consensus found in a majority?

Nothing in the Constitution talks about consensus as it applies to rights

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're born with them.

The Constitution is a document predicated on the "natural rights" paradigm.

Nothing in the Constitution talks about consensus as it applies to rights.

We are consequently subject to the rule of law, not men.

“[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all." Wallace v. Jaffree (1985).

 

[beagle9]

Ok, so if my sons & their friends are playing in the yard let's say, and a neighbor kid comes over and ((demands)) that they play the game a different way, and this all because he is offended, and isn't capable to play it the way that they have been playing, so does my sons and their friends change the game based upon the kids ((demands)), and this even if he goes and gets his father (i.e. the ACLU) to defend him when they don't change due his being offended and/or demands given, or do they say to the kid "sorry" but we play the game this way, and it is up to you to learn it that way, and if need be, we can help you learn it that away if you want us to, but no we will not change on your ((demand))?

Now if the kid came into the yard, and looked as if he really wanted to play the game, but was scared to play in the way that it was being played, and then he (((ASKED))) if they could change the game up a little bit, in order that he fit into the game also, then I bet the response would be "yes we will change it up a bit, just so you can play as well with us, so welcome aboard my friend". This is how it should work in America, but for some un-Godly reasons it hasn't been working in America, so the game is changed against the majorities will, thus dragging everyone down to a level that is pushing this nation back into the stone ages because of, yet the idiotic government and it's idiotic activist judges can't seem to figure this one out for some reason.

I thought you didn't deal in hypotheticals?

Your analogy is incorrect. The rules haven't changed. Congress still shall not make a law establishing religion. This right is still incorporated against the states. It has simply been applied per precedent to the situation at hand. That is how it should work in America. If you want a school with a religious document on the wall, by all means use your own money and start one. However, if you want to use tax dollars to fund a school open to the public, it is going to be a religiously neutral environment. If you want your children to learn about religion, nothing is stopping you from discussing it until you are blue in the face at home, or in the car, or at church.

I have chosen to enroll my daughter in a public school. I want her to grow up in religion, so I expose her to the religion of my choice and see that she follows the dictates of proper worship. Regardless of the percentage of the population that follows my particular religion, I have no right to dictate to her school that they must also follow along in the dictates of that religion, and according to the Bill of Rights, neither does anyone else. And that is the way it should be. If you're so bad at proselytizing for your religion that you have to invade the public schools with it, that's your fault, not the government's.

It's pretty simple to understand why this is necessary if you remove the Christian aspect of the story and insert Islam in instead. However, that's a mental exercise that you won't do because you know it wipes out your "majority" Dominionist argument.

We could go right now, and bring back hundreds of things that the government supports and allows in which is contridictory to your alledged rock solid views held upon the government, in which are views and laws that fall right up under the same category that you love to speak against me with, but yet these don't apply within yours and the corrupt governments hypocrytical belief system, in which it now imposes on all of us these days does it, and especially so it wouldnot then suit with your attacks on me if were brought up, and may even counter your bull in the situation, yet only if you thought more freely, instead of more controlled as you do here, would you then see the light or the error of your ways maybe.

Hypotheticals? I don't deal with ignorant hypo's is all, sorry I meant to tell you that but forgot...

 

[Againsheila]

So are "Whites only" signs

They came down in 1963 also

This banner has been up for 49 years. All of a sudden because of one bratty girl, they have to take it down. It's a highschool for goodness sake.. do you really belive that banner is going to influence anyone not already a Christian to say a Christian prayer?

She should have just kept her head down, and said she agreed with every else, right?

Not at all.. She has every right to comment on it and to have her own opinion. We do have freedom of speech here. She may have even gone to the student body and tried to bring it down by a vote of the students. Instead, she went to the ACLU and got her way forced on everybody, regardless.

 

[beagle9]

I heard on the news today, about a teen who is 16 years old, and for whom had somehow teamed up with the ACLU against her school by way of a lawsuit, because the school had a banner that had religious words upon it, in which was displayed for all to read in the school I'm guessing.

Now this is what rubs me wrong with cases like this, where as you have this gullable teen and the ACLU, along with an idiot judge, for whom I think does not take at all into consideration, the very democracy for which we all try to live with and live for in this nation, where as lets say that the school in a whopping 99% wanted the banner to fly in that specific school over the 1% that didnot want it to fly, and where as what if the parents of the children wanted that banner to fly also, yet you have "ONE", and her accomplices for money representing her in an evil mean spirited way, overiding the school, it's majority in staff, and it's majority in students, for whom want the banner to stay, along with the parents well wishes also in the situation, to then somehow override and kill the will and the rights of the people & students in a majority, and this be it the whole lot of them, by way of "ONE" who had a problem with it ????????

Kidding me right?????? Has this nation finally lost it's mind completely ??????

Yes, it might be good if the government gets out of most everything anymore in this nation that pertains to our social economic situation now , because it (the feds) are being used by devils to destroy the very fabric and slim goodness that is left in this nation, and this by devils whom have figured this sort of evilness out against the ones who are still good and for whom are now left in many cases such as this one, as still a majority..

((((Whereas)))) is one word. huh?


Oh man you made me laugh, but please watch your language ok....

 

[Crackerjack]

We could go right now, and bring back hundreds of things that the government supports and allows in which is contridictory to your alledged rock solid views held upon the government, in which are views and laws that fall right up under the same category that you love to speak against me with, but yet these don't apply within yours and the corrupt governments hypocrytical belief system, in which it now imposes on all of us these days does it, and especially so it wouldnot then suit with your attacks on me if were brought up, and may even counter your bull in the situation, yet only if you thought more freely, instead of more controlled as you do here, would you then see the light or the error of your ways maybe.

Hypotheticals? I don't deal with ignorant hypo's is all, sorry I meant to tell you that but forgot...

1. Please learn to avoid using run-on sentences. It's nearly impossible to read such writing.
2. The only thing that is being "imposed" upon you relative to this subject is the restriction on religious displays on government-owned (in other words, not yours) property.
3. The way I'm thinking is relative to the Constitution and the case law on this subject. If you think the Constitution and/or the case law is wrong, please elaborate using specific examples and not vague generalities.
4. Like I said, you don't acknowledge hypothetical situations you can't address. The only one here that's ignorant regarding this subject is you. Maybe you'll make progress, and maybe you'll cling to your ignorance. That is for you to decide.

 

[beagle9]

I heard on the news today, about a teen who is 16 years old, and for whom had somehow teamed up with the ACLU against her school by way of a lawsuit, because the school had a banner that had religious words upon it, in which was displayed for all to read in the school I'm guessing.

Now this is what rubs me wrong with cases like this, where as you have this gullable teen and the ACLU, along with an idiot judge, for whom I think does not take at all into consideration, the very democracy for which we all try to live with and live for in this nation, where as lets say that the school in a whopping 99% wanted the banner to fly in that specific school over the 1% that didnot want it to fly, and where as what if the parents of the children wanted that banner to fly also, yet you have "ONE", and her accomplices for money representing her in an evil mean spirited way, overiding the school, it's majority in staff, and it's majority in students, for whom want the banner to stay, along with the parents well wishes also in the situation, to then somehow override and kill the will and the rights of the people & students in a majority, and this be it the whole lot of them, by way of "ONE" who had a problem with it ????????

Kidding me right?????? Has this nation finally lost it's mind completely ??????

Yes, it might be good if the government gets out of most everything anymore in this nation that pertains to our social economic situation now , because it (the feds) are being used by devils to destroy the very fabric and slim goodness that is left in this nation, and this by devils whom have figured this sort of evilness out against the ones who are still good and for whom are now left in many cases such as this one, as still a majority..

((((Whereas)))) is one word. huh?


Oh man you made me laugh, but please watch your language ok....

Not sure where the posters comment went, in which I am responding to in this reply, otherwise it apears that I am commenting to myself....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not at all.. She has every right to comment on it and to have her own opinion. We do have freedom of speech here. She may have even gone to the student body and tried to bring it down by a vote of the students. Instead, she went to the ACLU and got her way forced on everybody, regardless.

Incorrect.

Nothing was forced on anyone.

Americans don’t go begging to other Americans ‘please give me my rights.’

Last, whether or not one has rights is not determined by majority rule.

 

[Againsheila]

Because she does not want to force her religious beliefs on someone else and expects the same courtesy

So she sues, and imposes her beliefs on many against their will, but we seem to be in denial on that one for some reason now aren't we?

What belief did she impose?

Answer - none.

yep, she's forcing "non-belief" on people by taking away a religious banner that was given to the school by their graduating class 49 years ago. Worse, she's forcing the school to insult the graduating class of 1963 by throwing their gift back in their faces. IMHO, the graduating class of 1963 should sue her for the cost of the banner plus interest so they can produce something for the school that she and the court will allow to be displayed.