Schools = Christ Free Zone...

[sub_zer0]

Sorry ma'am, you can't say Jesus in school...

The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html

[neo of the mind]

You have freedom of speech until somebody says something that somebody else doesn't want to hear. It then becomes freedom of approved speech, which is what the United States currently has.

[towski]

Gosh, it must be hard to be a Christian in America these days, what with controlling all the wealth, government, and power.

[serenity]

Gosh, it must be hard to be a Christian in America these days, what with controlling all the wealth, government, and power.


It sure is, towski. There's an outright War on Christmas; there're activist judges who are hostile to religion; the Muslims are taking over; the Democrats hate Christianity...and so on.

That's why there are so few Christians around, and why we never get to hear their opinion on any subject...

[neo of the mind]

So how many instances of restriction of speech would have to occur for you to consider it a valid observation? Was her speech not restricted?

When your kids start to have their microphones cut off from them mid-sentence, will it then become a valid issue?

[towski]

So how many instances of restriction of speech would have to occur for you to consider it a valid observation? Was her speech not restricted?

When your kids start to have their microphones cut off from them mid-sentence, will it then become a valid issue?

47,316.

Seriously, incidents like this do occur, and it's an awkward issue. I personally feel that the courts have done a moderately ok job in determining most of these issues. But every time an overzealous school official with an inflated sense of self importance cuts off a microphone or substitutes a can of spam for the baby jesus in a nativity scene, it doesn't necessarily constitute a war on christians.

I think some of the Christian community has a vested interest in portraying themselves as a persecuted people. The martyr complex drives donations, attendance, and activism. That does not, however, make it any less disingenuous. :shrug:

[serenity]

Perhaps i could get up in front a school and casually assert that Christ is a myth and God doesn't exist. And when I"m silenced, I'd wait to see how the principled Christians, in solidarity and sympathy for my free speech rights, would come to my defense. It's be an interesting experiment.

[neo of the mind]

47,316.

Seriously, incidents like this do occur, and it's an awkward issue. I personally feel that the courts have done a moderately ok job in determining most of these issues. But every time an overzealous school official with an inflated sense of self importance cuts off a microphone or substitutes a can of spam for the baby jesus in a nativity scene, it doesn't necessarily constitute a war on christians.

I think some of the Christian community has a vested interest in portraying themselves as a persecuted people. The martyr complex drives donations, attendance, and activism. That does not, however, make it any less disingenuous. :shrug:

You guys are the ones who have taken this incident and turned it into a scope of "war". All we have said, is that it's a restriction on 1st amendment rights, period.

[neo of the mind]

Perhaps i could get up in front a school and casually assert that Christ is a myth and God doesn't exist. And when I"m silenced, I'd wait to see how the principled Christians, in solidarity and sympathy for my free speech rights, would come to my defense. It's be an interesting experiment.


and you would not be silenced under this schools policy.

[towski]

You guys are the ones who have taken this incident and turned it into a scope of "war". All we have said, is that it's a restriction on 1st amendment rights, period.

:rolleyes: Right. Trust me, this goes on the special Falwell list of pernicious attacks on Christians. It's filed right after the defendant who was hauled off for contempt for saying Jesus as an egregious attack on Christianity. (Never mind, of course, that the judge had warned the defendant that one more outburst would result in contempt. The fact that he said Jesus means the judge hates Christianity.)

[Ethos]

So how many instances of restriction of speech would have to occur for you to consider it a valid observation? Was her speech not restricted?

When your kids start to have their microphones cut off from them mid-sentence, will it then become a valid issue?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are valid restrictions based on context and constitutionality. Whether or not you agree with the application of these restrictions is incidental to this fact. Therefore it is fallacious to frame the debate in terms of speech being an absolute, unrestricted freedom in the first place.

Ethos

[Craig]

I just want to say that the girl in question is kinda hot... :D

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/photos/plug.jpg

[neo of the mind]

Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are valid restrictions based on context and constitutionality. Whether or not you agree with the application of these restrictions is incidental to this fact. Therefore it is fallacious to frame the debate in terms of speech being an absolute, unrestricted freedom in the first place.
Ethos

"Whether or not you agree with the application of these restrictions is incidental to this fact."

So when is it not "incidental"? What your telling me is that even if the application of "state" powers is wrong, it doesn't matter, because they have the ability to do it. Therefore, ignore it nor draw attention to their abuse of power. The restrictions you speak of are restrictions on the "STATE" not individuals, such as this girl. If a representitive of the "state", REPRESENTING the "state" preceded to make this speach, then you would be closer to making a case.

[Ethos]

"Whether or not you agree with the application of these restrictions is incidental to this fact."

So when is it not "incidental"? What your telling me is that even if the application of "state" powers is wrong, it doesn't matter, because they have the ability to do it. Therefore, ignore it nor draw attention to their abuse of power. The restrictions you speak of are restrictions on the "STATE" not individuals, such as this girl. If a representitive of the "state", REPRESENTING the "state" preceded to make this speach, then you would be closer to making a case.

What I am telling you is that you cannot dismiss the debate by claiming the girl's "free speech was restricted - end of story."

The only point I have made thus far is that free speech is not absolute. You are being far too defensive.

Ethos

[Dangerrmouse]

From the outraged link....

"But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.
....

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.
...
Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.

Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied."

All perfectly legal and constitutional then. Yet another strawman

[Ethos]

I suppose if a person is going to make a public stand on principle, they are more likely to gain ground by intentionally stirring the pot as hard as possible.

Showing some cleavage is apparently advantageous as well.

Ethos

[bowerbird]

So how many instances of restriction of speech would have to occur for you to consider it a valid observation? Was her speech not restricted?

When your kids start to have their microphones cut off from them mid-sentence, will it then become a valid issue?

If you want to see if something is fair invert it. Would you be complaining if this was a Jewish speaker? A Taoist? A Buddhist? A (lets whisper the word) Muslim?

[Ethos]

If you want to see if something is fair invert it. Would you be complaining if this was a Jewish speaker? A Taoist? A Buddhist? A (lets whisper the word) Muslim?

A predictable strategy.

The problem is this is not about what is "fair." Also I would not expect anyone to admit to anti-Muslim prejudice within this context, lest that person defeat their own argument.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

If you want to see if something is fair invert it. Would you be complaining if this was a Jewish speaker? A Taoist? A Buddhist? A (lets whisper the word) Muslim?

Yes I would. I would be complaining if anybody's first amendment rights were being violated. She earned the right to give a speech unfettered. If she wanted to mention Muhammed, Ghandi or anyone else that was a inspiration to her and a motivation for her success, then it should be allowed.

[nogoodname90]

Gosh, it must be hard to be a Christian in America these days, what with controlling all the wealth, government, and power.
i thought that was the jews :lol: :sorry:

[Dangerrmouse]

Yes I would. I would be complaining if anybody's first amendment rights were being violated. She earned the right to give a speech unfettered. If she wanted to mention Muhammed, Ghandi or anyone else that was a inspiration to her and a motivation for her success, then it should be allowed.


Since there is a vetting process, which the SC consistently finds lawful, then it seems there is no "unfettered right" How immature to believe otherwise.

[Strel]

I see our resident Christian Fundamentalists knowledge of the law rivals that of their knowledge of science.

:rolleyes:

"Forum analysis". You guys should google that and maybe read some SCOTUS cases.

[neo of the mind]

I don't need to be a lawyer to read and understand the Constituition. The first amendment is very clear. It has been the purposeful misinterpretation of the amendment by judges that want to, make law, that is the problem.

The Bill of Rights are RESTRICTIONS put on Government so that they don't intrude on our God given rights.

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.

Do you know what "abridging" means? How about the words "prohibiting", "free" and "exercise"?

How about the part where CONGRESS shall MAKE no LAW?

Article 14 could be interpreted has to tranfer the restrictions to the States as well.

Either way, that girls speech did not constitute a LAW being made by the Federal or State governments. Her freedom of speech was literally and unlawfully abridged though.

[Strel]

I don't need to be a lawyer to read and understand the Constituition. The first amendment is very clear. It has been the purposeful misinterpretation of the amendment by judges that want to, make law, that is the problem.

Interpretations of judges are also law. Which particular cases are you referring to? Can you show it is purposeful?

Let's see if the facts and the law support your assertion.

The Bill of Rights are RESTRICTIONS put on Government so that they don't intrude on our God given rights.

Which includes the Establishment Clause, which was enforced here. The Bill of Rights also exists to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

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.

Do you know what "abridging" means? How about the words "prohibiting", "free" and "exercise"?

Do you?

How about the part where CONGRESS shall MAKE no LAW?

How about stare decisis.

Either way, that girls speech did not constitute a LAW being made by the Federal or State governments. Her freedom of speech was literally and unlawfully abridged though.

This is a remarkably naive statement. Appellate cases interpreting the Constitution are also the law. So far I have not seen you cite a single one to support your position. I'm betting I won't, either.

[steveksux]

All perfectly legal and constitutional then. Yet another strawmanI should have known. Could have sworn I just saw Dorothy and Toto go by....

But seriously, this has been hashed over many many times. Religious prosthelytizing at graduation ceremonies has been ruled out of bounds by the courts for years. Presumably the lawyers involved argued the free speech aspects, no? And lost. So if people have a problem with the rulings argue the rulings. Don't come here and make the same failed arguments about free speech that the courts have conclusively shot down.

The girl can stand on a soapbox and give her speech to her hearts content. No free speech issues at all. However at a public school ceremony the rest of the student body is not required to sit through her sermon. Nor should they be. If she wants to do a sermon, go to her local church and ask the pastor if she can try her hand at it.

Randy

[FlyingGuineapig]

As usual, the Fundies aren't being honest in how they frame the debate. All the discussion so far has failed to mention that it's only public schools that have these restrictions (due to the whole "government can not establish a religion" part of the 1st Amendment).

If it's essential to you that your child be able to talk about Jesus during their graduation ceremony, send them to a private school. You can even have a prayer service during a private school's graduation.

Personally, I think the government goes a bit too far - but I can see how the line between religious references and proselytizing can be blurry. But realistically, if you're counting on the government to provide the religion in your child's life, you're making a grevious mistake. Matt 22:21

[Meek Heir]

I don't need to be a lawyer to read and understand the Constituition. The first amendment is very clear. It has been the purposeful misinterpretation of the amendment by judges that want to, make law, that is the problem.

The Bill of Rights are RESTRICTIONS put on Government so that they don't intrude on our God given rights.

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.

Do you know what "abridging" means? How about the words "prohibiting", "free" and "exercise"?

How about the part where CONGRESS shall MAKE no LAW?

Article 14 could be interpreted has to tranfer the restrictions to the States as well.

Either way, that girls speech did not constitute a LAW being made by the Federal or State governments. Her freedom of speech was literally and
unlawfully abridged though.

Where were you when I was argueing with Phantom about this. His assertion is that states are immune to the first amendment and can establish a state religion and restrict speech all they want.

As for the subject at hand, having recently attended a public school graduation where many a speech was closer to a sermon I don't see why people make a big deal about this. Or at least if they are going to why can't they apply it equally.

The number of times I am forced to listen to speech about God is signifigant enough that a graduation speech is not on the important list.

[Strel]

Religions cannot use the organs of the state to proselytize.

[Meek Heir]

Religions cannot use the organs of the state to proselytize.

But they do. I challenge you to stop them.

Start by making the President stop mentioning God in his public speeches. Good luck.

[Strel]

But they do. I challenge you to stop them.

Start by making the President stop mentioning God in his public speeches. Good luck.


If only it were that simple.

But in fact it is bewlideringly complex, another factor that the Fundies like to ignore when it suits them.

[neo of the mind]

Interpretations of judges are also law. Which particular cases are you referring to? Can you show it is purposeful?

Their judgments are law and become precedent, not their interpretations.


Let's see if the facts and the law support your assertion.

Which includes the Establishment Clause, which was enforced here.
The establishment clause only applies to representitives of the State or Federal governments. Show proof that the girl was a representitve of a governmental body.

The Bill of Rights also exists to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Really? Where.

Do you?
Yes.

How about stare decisis.
Yeah, do you know what "an en banc decision" means.

This is a remarkably naive statement. Appellate cases interpreting the Constitution are also the law. So far I have not seen you cite a single one to support your position. I'm betting I won't, either.

Donoghue v Stevens [1932] AC 562

[neo of the mind]

As usual, the Fundies aren't being honest in how they frame the debate. All the discussion so far has failed to mention that it's only public schools that have these restrictions (due to the whole "government can not establish a religion" part of the 1st Amendment).



And that is the same tired old argument for why it is constituitional to limit free speech. Like many other cases, she was not in a position to break the establishment clause.

She did not pass a Federal law.
She did not pass a State law.
She is not a representive of the Federal, State or any other governing body.

Therefore, she could not break the establishment clause.

The school, however did violate her the 1st amendement rights.

[Strel]

Their judgments are law and become precedent, not their interpretations.

The judgments necessarily include interpretations or their precedential value is zero. Your statement makes no sense.

The establishment clause only applies to representitives of the State or Federal governments. Show proof that the girl was a representitve of a governmental body.

Agency. In her role as giving the speech for the school's graduation ceremony, she becomes an agent of the school to a certain extent. That extent includes them having some control over the content of her speech - particularly because she is a student as well (and subject to a different level of rights than normal) and because it is a public school (again - forum analysis) the standards are more strict. Her speech was over the top, and over the line. It would be the same regardless of which religion she was recruiting for.

Really? Where.

:rolleyes: If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the Bill of RIghts.

If everyone is in agreement and a member of the majority, what would be the need for a Bill of Rights? What is the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause, if not this? Ditto the 1st Amendment. If everyone was a fundamentalist Christian, why in the world would you need a First Amendment at all?

The Bill of Rights PRIMARY function is to guard against the tyranny of the majority. It is also the reason behind our having checks and balances on the branches of government. Without the Bill of Rights, the majority can pass whatever legislation it likes. You getting it yet?

How about if the white majority decided one day that all black people have to pay a poll tax. Getting it yet?

Yes.

No, you don't. I can make that painfully clear if you want to continue.

Yeah, do you know what "an en banc decision" means.

Yes I do, but it's application to current circumstances escapes me completely.

[1932] AC 562

How about a PROPER legal citation, so we can look this up (to see when it was overruled).

[neo of the mind]

If only it were that simple.

But in fact it is bewlideringly complex, another factor that the Fundies like to ignore when it suits them.


It's not complex at all. The President can mention God because when he does it, according to the courts, it doesn't have any real meaning. I know there is a word or phrase that is used to describe this, because I read it somewhere but can't find it. Anyway, it's just that when the President says it, it is considered a ceremonial invocation that is empty, so to speak.

[FlyingGuineapig]

And that is the same tired old argument for why it is constituitional to limit free speech. Like many other cases, she was not in a position to break the establishment clause.

She did not pass a Federal law.
She did not pass a State law.
She is not a representive of the Federal, State or any other governing body.

Therefore, she could not break the establishment clause.

The school, however did violate her the 1st amendement rights.
She was speaking in government-sponsored ceremony.

And BTW, Donoghue v Stevens wasn't in US courts.

[Strel]

Well no wonder I couldn't find it in Westlaw.

It's a case from a foreign jurisdiction that has nothing at all to do with American law, much less the 1st Amendment.

You are going to have to do better than this, neo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson

And it's about torts anyway. Sheesh.

[Strel]

"Background
On the evening of Sunday 26 August 1928, May McAlister boarded a tram in Glasgow for the thirty minute journey to Paisley. At around ten minutes to nine, she and a friend took their seats in the Wellmeadow Café in the town's Wellmeadow Place. They were approached by the café owner, Francis Minghella, and May's friend ordered and paid for a pear and ice and an iced drink. The owner brought the order and poured part of a bottle of ginger beer into a tumbler containing ice cream. May drank some of the contents and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the tumbler. On doing so, it was claimed that the remains of a snail in a state of decomposition plopped out of the bottle into the tumbler. May later complained of stomach pain, and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis. She also claimed to have suffered emotional distress as a result of the incident."

From link above.

Would someone please tell me what the hell this has to do with the US Constitution?

[neo of the mind]

The judgments necessarily include interpretations or their precedential value is zero. Your statement makes no sense.



Agency. In her role as giving the speech for the school's graduation ceremony, she becomes an agent of the school to a certain extent. That extent includes them having some control over the content of her speech - particularly because she is a student as well (and subject to a different level of rights than normal) and because it is a public school (again - forum analysis) the standards are more strict. Her speech was over the top, and over the line. It would be the same regardless of which religion she was recruiting for.



:rolleyes: If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the Bill of RIghts.

If everyone is in agreement and a member of the majority, what would be the need for a Bill of Rights? What is the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause, if not this? Ditto the 1st Amendment. If everyone was a fundamentalist Christian, why in the world would you need a First Amendment at all?

The Bill of Rights PRIMARY function is to guard against the tyranny of the majority. It is also the reason behind our having checks and balances on the branches of government. Without the Bill of Rights, the majority can pass whatever legislation it likes. You getting it yet?

How about if the white majority decided one day that all black people have to pay a poll tax. Getting it yet?



No, you don't. I can make that painfully clear if you want to continue.



Yes I do, but it's application to current circumstances escapes me completely.



How about a PROPER legal citation, so we can look this up (to see when it was overruled).


Actually, I don't want to discuss with you any longer <mod edit>

[FlyingGuineapig]

The President can mention God because when he does it, according to the courts, it doesn't have any real meaning. I know there is a word or phrase that is used to describe this, because I read it somewhere but can't find it.
Ceremonial deitism is I think the phrase you're referring to - but for some reason I can never find any official reference to it, even though I'm pretty sure I remember it from a court ruling somewhere.

[Strel]

Actually, I don't want to discuss with you any longer because your a pompous jerk.


I win again.

Next time try to cite a case from this country.

[neo of the mind]

Ceremonial deitism is I think the phrase you're referring to - but for some reason I can never find any official reference to it, even though I'm pretty sure I remember it from a court ruling somewhere.

That sounds right. Your also correct in that it is hard to find anything on it.
I have always wondered about why the President and the Congress is allowed to do this. The ACLU is hovering around graduation ceremonies so it kid doesn't step out of line, but nothing has come of this.

[neo of the mind]

I win again.

Next time try to cite a case from this country.

.....and that's all this is about for you, winning an argument. Nuff said.

[Strel]

.....and that's all this is about for you, winning an argument. Nuff said.


It's about refuting your baseless talking points. You make conclusions about the law which are not true, and represent them as fact.

When pressed on your conclusions, you seem unable to back them up and get upset. It doesn't go unnoticed that you cannot seem to refute a single point I made in the post above.

Once again I get the impression that you have been getting your information from less than honest sources. Probably the same people that teach you Creationism.

[Strel]

Now let me enlighten you. The President making a reference to God versus a public high school commencment speech is apples and oranges within 1st Amendment forum analysis.

Public schools, by their nature, are subject to a higher standard of scrutiny when it comes to the Establishment Clause.

That this is happening in a public school just isn't a trivial difference - it makes all the difference.

[Strel]

It's not simple at all....

Consider this:

ACLU of New Jersey Defends Second-Grader's Right to Sing Religious Song (6/5/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.

The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.

"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."

In its brief, the ACLU argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny her choice of song.

The talent show was open for anyone from the 1st through 8th grades who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.

"We are dedicated to protecting the right of individual religious expression," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "O.T. has our full support in defense of her right to sing a religious song in the talent show."

SNIP

The case, O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, was filed in federal court in Trenton.


What was that about being anti-Christian? Contradictory? Or are the circumstances different?

Details matter, as much as fundies wish they didn't.



From http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html

[FlyingGuineapig]

A few months ago, in another forum, ROOK had posted this write-up which helps explain a bit about how religion can be taught in public school without interferring upon the Establishment clause.

http://www.asbj.com/2003/04/0403research.html

[neo of the mind]

It's about refuting your baseless talking points. You make conclusions about the law which are not true, and represent them as fact.

When pressed on your conclusions, you seem unable to back them up and get upset. It doesn't go unnoticed that you cannot seem to refute a single point I made in the post above.

Once again I get the impression that you have been getting your information from less than honest sources. Probably the same people that teach you Creationism.


I get upset over your condescension towards me and others. That is the way you are, I understand that but no longer wish to absorb that in order to discuss anything with you. You didn't press me on my conclusions anyway, you made up new ones and comenced to debate those. My statements on the constituition are accurate and the counter to that pointing to the oligarchy of the judicial branch is not adequate.

[Strel]

I get upset over your condescension towards me and others. That is the way you are, I understand that but no longer wish to absorb that in order to discuss anything with you. You didn't press me on my conclusions anyway, you made up new ones and comenced to debate those. My statements on the constituition are accurate and the counter to that pointing to the oligarchy of the judicial branch is not adequate.


Stop posting crap and you will get better treatment. Seriously.
As long as you make statements that I know are false, I'm going to call you on it, and I am going to embarass you for not doing your homework.

Your statements on the constitution are not accurate, and ignore 200+ years of case law, all of which is very relevant. Your sin, such as it is, is to oversimplify (and that's an understatement) the situation. You give every indication that you do not really know what you are talking about, yet expect to be taken seriously?

[Strel]

Something better than the same tired old "war on christians" and rehashed strict constructionism arguments would be nice for a change.

Or addressing the points made, instead of bellyaching about them.

[serenity]

and you would not be silenced under this schools policy.


For getting up in front of a public school, insisting that God doersn’t exist, and that Jesus is a myth?

What irritates is not your opinion, neo, but the plain fact that this isn’t your opinion…obviously you know I’m correct.

You see, it’s best if we can attempt to remain honest in these debates. Surely a self-professed Christian can agree this far.

[Meek Heir]

If only it were that simple.

But in fact it is bewlideringly complex, another factor that the Fundies like to ignore when it suits them.

I am just saying that if you can'tr stop them from doing real damage why does a graduation matter?

[Meek Heir]

It's not complex at all. The President can mention God because when he does it, according to the courts, it doesn't have any real meaning. I know there is a word or phrase that is used to describe this, because I read it somewhere but can't find it. Anyway, it's just that when the President says it, it is considered a ceremonial invocation that is empty, so to speak.

But ceremonial deism aside, it certainly means something when he says, I am a born again Christian and God wants me as President and sanctions all my policies. (Gross paraphrasing, but still he means that.)

[Strel]

I am just saying that if you can'tr stop them from doing real damage why does a graduation matter?


Because of (and I'm paraphrasing Sandra Day O'Connor) the uniquely coercive nature of the classroom. Because it is kids held as more or less a captive audience (you don't have to listen to the President, but kids have to listen to teachers). The SCOTUS has applied this standard not only to the classroom but to school-sponsored events, and graduation ceremonies in particular.

[neo of the mind]

Here is an example of judical activism, same state too:

http://claremont.org/projects/jurisprudence/0030714nevada.html

and the black robes in Kansas are doing the same thing:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010656.php

[Dangerrmouse]

Neither link goes to support the op, or even relates to its spurious assertions. Next?

[steveksux]

It's not simple at all....

Consider this:

ACLU of New Jersey Defends Second-Grader's Right to Sing Religious Song (6/5/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.

The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.

"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."

In its brief, the ACLU argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny her choice of song.

The talent show was open for anyone from the 1st through 8th grades who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.

"We are dedicated to protecting the right of individual religious expression," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "O.T. has our full support in defense of her right to sing a religious song in the talent show."

SNIP

The case, O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, was filed in federal court in Trenton.


What was that about being anti-Christian? Contradictory? Or are the circumstances different?

Details matter, as much as fundies wish they didn't.



From http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.htmlSomeone needs to send this to Missouri Mule and Jamesrage.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Neither link goes to support the op, or even relates to its spurious assertions. Next?

It goes to support the statement I made when another poster sidetracked the discussion requesting that I give proof of the judiciary willfully creating law. Next.

[neo of the mind]

Consider this:

ACLU of New Jersey Defends Second-Grader's Right to Sing Religious Song (6/5/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.

The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.

"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."

In its brief, the ACLU argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny her choice of song.

The talent show was open for anyone from the 1st through 8th grades who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.

"We are dedicated to protecting the right of individual religious expression," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "O.T. has our full support in defense of her right to sing a religious song in the talent show."

SNIP

The case, O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, was filed in federal court in Trenton.


What was that about being anti-Christian? Contradictory? Or are the circumstances different?

Details matter, as much as fundies wish they didn't.


I am actually surprised that the ACLU did this. It is very rare indeed. I also think their comments would apply to this graduation case as well as it contains all the basic elements. A school function, voluntary and "speech initiated by individual students".

[FlyingGuineapig]

I am actually surprised that the ACLU did this. It is very rare indeed. I also think their comments would apply to this graduation case as well as it contains all the basic elements. A school function, voluntary and "speech initiated by individual students".

There are differences. Graduation is essentially mandatory (unless a student has express permission to miss it) when compared to a talent show.

Garduation is "endorsed by school personnel".

If a student wants to hold a voluntary Bible study group, that would be fine - it's not mandatory (i.e. only students who want to attend need to). However, I don't think a teacher could lead the study group, since that would be "endorsed by school personnel".

[Strel]

Neither link goes to support the op, or even relates to its spurious assertions. Next?

This is from the same guy that cited a SCOTTISH case about a tort claim involving a dead, rotting snail in some ginger ale to support his arguments about the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

[Strel]

Someone needs to send this to Missouri Mule and Jamesrage.

Randy


I gave them both a whole page of examples just like this. They ignored them, naturally. Almost automatically, it seemed. ;)

I'm too lazy to trot out more examples for neo, who is "surprised" and thinks this kind of case is "rare." (I guess he didn't click the link).

Suffice it to say I am not surprised that he is surprised. :lol: I'm getting a strong impression that neo gets his news, his science, and his legal opinions from pretty much the same incorrect and misleading sources.

[neo of the mind]

It is rare, find five more cases that show the ACLU standing up for a Christians right to express Christianity.

Edit: I stand corrected, I just now noticed the link and viewed it. It appears that the ACLU has a handfull of cases since 2002. I guess they didn't do anything prior to that.

That being said, the perception that they are anti-religious, when it is politically correct to be, is not without merit based on their actions or lack thereof.

[Strel]

ACLU of Virginia Defends Federal Law Guaranteeing Religious Rights of Prisoners (06/12/2006)
RICHMOND, VA -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals defending the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit (04/19/2006)
ATLANTA -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church, charging that the city of East Point, Georgia violated a federal religious discrimination law when it denied the church a zoning permit needed to establish its house of worship.

NYCLU Challenges Coast Guard Ban on Religious Head Coverings in License Photographs (03/28/2006)
NEW YORK -- The New York Civil Liberties Union, working with the New York University Law School Civil Rights Clinic, filed a federal lawsuit in Manhattan today challenging a Coast Guard regulation that withholds merchant marine licenses from people who do not remove their religious head coverings

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services (01/12/2006)
PROVIDENCE, RI -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island announced today that it has filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of a Christian prisoner who was barred from preaching during religious services at the state prison.

ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (12/06/2005)
DETROIT -- After exhausting all avenues in the Michigan courts, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a Catholic man who was criminally punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program.

Landmark Religious Freedom Law at Stake in Case Being Argued Today Before the High Court (11/01/2005)
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirito Uniao Do Vegetal (UDV)¸ No. 04-1084, a case reviewing whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects a religious group from prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act for using a hallucinogenic plant as part of its spiritual practice.

ACLU Helps Free New Mexico Street Preacher From Prison (08/04/2005)
PORTALES, NM -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico today announced that it has succeeded in freeing street preacher Shawn Miller from the Roosevelt County jail. Miller was arrested last April after Portales police claimed he was yelling at passing cars, although Miller maintains he was merely ""preaching the word of God.""

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Religious Discrimination by North Carolina Courts (07/26/2005)
RALEIGH, NC -- The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina today filed a lawsuit challenging the state's practice of refusing to allow people of faith to take an oath in court using a religious text other than the Christian Bible.

ACLU Urges North Carolina Courts to Allow Use of Multiple Religious Texts for Swearing Oaths (07/11/2005)
RALEIGH, NC -- The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina today accused the Administrative Office of Courts of dragging its feet on an important issue of religious freedom and called upon the rule-making body to adopt a policy allowing the use of the Qur'an and other religious texts for the swearing of oaths in court proceedings.

[Strel]

Pennsylvania Judge Upholds Muslim Firefighter's Religious Liberty in ACLU Lawsuit (06/01/2005)
PHILADELPHIA -- In Pennsylvania's first court interpretation of the state's Religious Freedom Protection Act, a city judge has ruled that a devout Muslim firefighter who refuses to shave his beard on religious grounds cannot be fired while his legal case continues.

ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (12/22/2004)
NEWARK, NJ-- The State Supreme Court ruled today that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution when he removed two jurors from a jury pool, one for wearing Muslim religious clothing and another for having engaged in missionary activity

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (08/11/2004)
LINCOLN --The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska today announced that it would defend a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city.

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (06/03/2004)
RICHMOND, VA -- Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Falmouth Waterside Park Manager Brian Robinson has agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County, the ACLU announced today.

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (05/11/2004)
DETROIT - The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The student's entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.

Following ACLU Lawsuit, Town Officials Settle Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit to Pittsburgh Area Church (04/19/2004)
PITTSBURGH - The American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Pittsburgh today announced the settlement of a federal civil rights lawsuit charging illegal race and religious discrimination in a local town's refusal to issue a zoning permit to a predominantly African-American church.

n Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (04/17/2002)
RICHMOND, VA--A federal judge has struck down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating, in a challenge filed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, the group announced today.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/relatedinformation_9_press_releases.html (already snipped)




Do you want more, or have I made my point?

[neo of the mind]

I edited my post while you were posting. So read that if you care, or not.

[The_Penguin]

I just want to say that the girl in question is kinda hot... :D

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/photos/plug.jpg
Amen to that.

[Strel]

It is rare, find five more cases that show the ACLU standing up for a Christians right to express Christianity.

Edit: I stand corrected, I just now noticed the link and viewed it. It appears that the ACLU has a handfull of cases since 2002. I guess they didn't do anything prior to that.

That being said, the perception that they are anti-religious, when it is politically correct to be, is not without merit based on their actions or lack thereof.


Are you going to make me post all of their free exercises cases back to the beginning of time?

Look them up yourself.

Essentially you are dead wrong on this issue. The ACLU regularly takes up free exercise cases. Your friends at Liberty University or wherever the hell it is you are getting your erroneous information (including Falwell himself, who benefitted from the ACLU intervening in at least one case above).

Now before you start, there are more Establishment clause cases than free exercise cases. Would you like to know why?

Free exercise cases are easy. Most cops, school principles, city councilpersons, and other public officials understand it intuitively, because it lends itself to that kind of analysis. So you get fewer violations - the lines are more clearly drawn (at personal expression). The only time you get a real controversy is when someone is just being a jerk, or when there is a compelling state interest in play that the courts have to figure out how to balance, or trying to decide whether it is really an Establishment Clause case or not - "a sufficient governmental nexus". If those questions can be answered. Examples of this are above.

Establishment cases are NOT easy. Navigating your way through the average Establishment Clause cases is a non-trivial problem. You have to allow free exercise and respect the E-clause at the same time. Not only do you have to get past the governmental nexus thing, you have to engage in what I have been ranting about: forum analysis. What kind of forum is this? After that there are tests that apply specifically to certain fora, like the Lemon test, etc. It is much more complex than free exercise law, hence fewer people really understand it, hence violations occur all the time.

What fundy Christians and some other conservatives do not seem to understand is that free exercise means nothing without the Establishment Clause. Without it, the government can just be a marketer for X religion without directly discouraging the practice of others. And this happens not just between religion, but between sects within a religion. What does free exercise mean for a Christian when the only game in town is Islam?

All of this is fine if you are the majority religion - or at least the one in control.

[neo of the mind]

Your still debating with me about something? Why? You win ok. You are far superior to me. You are a genius. Just ignore my posts, they are beneath your level for response.

[Dangerrmouse]

Neo, it is kind of like flea bites. They itch and mildly irritate.

[Meek Heir]

Because of (and I'm paraphrasing Sandra Day O'Connor) the uniquely coercive nature of the classroom. Because it is kids held as more or less a captive audience (you don't have to listen to the President, but kids have to listen to teachers). The SCOTUS has applied this standard not only to the classroom but to school-sponsored events, and graduation ceremonies in particular.

I agree that the "uniquely coercive nature of the classroom" should be taken into account. But if they are graduating we would hope that by this point they are capable of processing information and evaluating truth. I think the school should be allowed to cut the speech off. But I hadly see it as a very important case to defend.

[brainpan]

I agree that the "uniquely coercive nature of the classroom" should be taken into account. But if they are graduating we would hope that by this point they are capable of processing information and evaluating truth. I think the school should be allowed to cut the speech off. But I hadly see it as a very important case to defend.We definitely had a U.C.N.o.t.C. dynamic in play, but maybe the captive audience might have been just as offended/coerced by the content of a purely secular speech.

It is beyond doubt that many very vocal students were very offended by the imposed absence of religious expression. They didn't like the censorship, and rightly so. The school discriminated against religious expression, and that was wrong in my opinion.

What compelling interest does the state REALLY have in censoring religious expression in this type of case? How soon before we remove the crosses at Arlington?

[nogoodname90]

last time i cheaked church and state was supposed to be separte?

[nogoodname90]

last time i cheaked church and state was supposed to be separte?

[brainpan]

last time i cheaked church and state was supposed to be separte?That's a dumbed down version of the 1st Amendment that is useless without lots of qualification.

Since you're "checking" for us, get back to me when you find the words "separation, wall of separation, or separation of church and state" in the 1st Amendment.

Why not go crazy and take a wack at answering my question? What compelling interest does the state REALLY have in censoring religious expression in this type of case?

[Strel]

Your still debating with me about something? Why? You win ok. You are far superior to me. You are a genius. Just ignore my posts, they are beneath your level for response.


<mod edit>

[neo of the mind]

Stop spreading lies and propaganda and maybe we can have an actual debate sometime. :lol:

Oh, NOW I am a liar. I see how this works now. You like to label people as liars knowing full well that they are not.

I may be wrong/misinformed/ignorant, which I don't have a problem in admitting, and which I have done several times on the forum, but I have not lied.

Learn the difference, lawyer.

[neo of the mind]

We definitely had a U.C.N.o.t.C. dynamic in play, but maybe the captive audience might have been just as offended/coerced by the content of a purely secular speech.

It is beyond doubt that many very vocal students were very offended by the imposed absence of religious expression. They didn't like the censorship, and rightly so. The school discriminated against religious expression, and that was wrong in my opinion.

What compelling interest does the state REALLY have in censoring religious expression in this type of case? How soon before we remove the crosses at Arlington?


I applaud you for your intellectual honesty in this topic and your willingness to question an action that may not be 100% in your camp of thought. That is my perception so far and you can correct me if I am wrong.

You are exactly right in pointing this out and "seeing ahead". There should be no denying the fact that "Christian" religious expression specifically, has been curtailed by various means and degrees the last 40 or so odd years compared to it's original status. Argue right or wrong, there was a change that occured in our society since the 60's in my opinion. To me the question isn't a matter of if it is happening, but for what purpose and why.

[steveksux]

Oh, NOW I am a liar. I see how this works now. You like to label people as liars knowing full well that they are not.

I may be wrong/misinformed/ignorant, which I don't have a problem in admitting, and which I have done several times on the forum, but I have not lied.

Learn the difference, lawyer.I agree with you Neo, I have not found you to be a liar.

However, spreading lies and propaganda due to being misinformed is not the same as being a liar. So I'm not convinced Strel called you a liar either. Not convinced he didn't, either, it depends on whether he thinks you knew the propaganda was false.

My 2c.

Randy

[steveksux]

I applaud you for your intellectual honesty in this topic and your willingness to question an action that may not be 100% in your camp of thought. That is my perception so far and you can correct me if I am wrong.

You are exactly right in pointing this out and "seeing ahead". There should be no denying the fact that "Christian" religious expression specifically, has been curtailed by various means and degrees the last 40 or so odd years compared to it's original status. Argue right or wrong, there was a change that occured in our society since the 60's in my opinion. To me the question isn't a matter of if it is happening, but for what purpose and why.Also need to ask if its a good thing, long overdue, or a bad thing that should be rolled back....

I see the curtailment being restricted to official and semi official functions and gatherings which are not religious in nature. Prayer in classrooms, at graduation ceremonies, etc. I have no problem with that. It wasn't an obvious problem before as the country was overwhelmingly Christian. As other religions become more common, they have a right to question Christianity's expression in civic forums, or demand equal time. The easy solution is to remove Christianity from its elevated position and place it at the same level as other religions. This is proper and appropriate in my opinion.

The moment they try to limit religious expression in churches, private get togethers, etc, is the moment I am on your side fighting for your right to free expression. As will the ACLU be by your side as well.

Regarding removing crosses from Arlington, that I feel is a totally different situation. There are Stars of David on the Jewish graves. Everyone there gets to exercise their choice of appropriate headstones. We are just visiting. Essentially that is their home first and foremost, and a public national monument second. They have the right to their preferred headstone based on their religious beliefs. I see no conflict there.

Randy

[Strel]

Oh, NOW I am a liar. I see how this works now. You like to label people as liars knowing full well that they are not.

I may be wrong/misinformed/ignorant, which I don't have a problem in admitting, and which I have done several times on the forum, but I have not lied.

Learn the difference, lawyer.

<mod edit>

[Strel]

<mod edit>


That is just utter crap, considering I wrote pretty much the same thing as Steve.

[Strel]

<mod edit>

I posted this MONDAY, and it gets a MOD EDIT Friday.


Someone's been whining, I see. :rolleyes:

[green lantern]

I posted this MONDAY, and it gets a MOD EDIT Friday.


Someone's been whining, I see. :rolleyes:
if you have a problem with the edit , please contact a moderator and do not derail the thread. thank you

[Strel]

if you have a problem with the edit , please contact a moderator and do not derail the thread. thank you


Read Steve's post and then read what I wrote that you edited. Maybe you can tell me the difference.

Neo posted something that was demonstrably untrue. I busted him on it, and now he is whining. End of story.

[neo of the mind]

I wasn't whining about anything. I just made an observation that you like to call people liars. So the mod edit on your post was not initiated by me. Lawyer.

[green lantern]

ENOUGH.....ANYMORE AND I CAN ARRANGE FOR A LONG WHISTLESTOPPER FREE WEEKEND.

[steveksux]

That is just utter crap, considering I wrote pretty much the same thing as Steve.I didn't say anything about mods or edits... :confused: And my name's not Steve...

You sir, are a bald faced LI.... uhhhh LAWYER! ;)

Randy

[Strel]

I didn't say anything about mods or edits... :confused: And my name's not Steve...

You sir, are a bald faced LI.... uhhhh LAWYER! ;)

Randy



;)


I suppose he thinks I was insulted. :confused:

[Atticus]

Ok, we're done here. Thread locked.