nikki1 Posted December 23, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 98 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,260 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 55 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2009 Blessings, Axxman Nikki said Under the First Amendment, Christians are free to talk about Jesus and their faith in any public place and at work as long as it is not interferring with their work. Axxman replied If you keep reading the constitution past #1 and #2, you will come across something called the 14th amendment. You see, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination, including on the basis of religion. You see, if you are working for the taxpayers in an official capacity and you start praying to your diety...it is legally discriminatory to not pray to the diety of everyone else. Nikki said The fourteenth amendment was never at all applied in the case as you are trying to imply. Axxman said Well...that would make sense since this case never made it to the Federal level... So which amendment are you now talking about, Axxman?.... You were the one who insinuated the fourteenth amendment was applicable here? ? How can you accuse the ACLU of overstepping their bounds when the school district admitted in court that the ACLU was right and that they were guilty? There was no religious argument. The case was filed and the defendants admitted guilt? How is that an argument? The only "argument" came after school employees continued to break the law and the order of the court. The court did drop the charges on those cases...but only because the court accepted that the defendants forgot about the law. Very easy. I already addressed that above. Nikki said No that is not the reason alleged "guilt" was admitted. The school employees, according to the order had no say and no legal representation in the case to protect their rights. Really? I wonder who those legal guys are who signed the admission of liability. It would appear that the legal representation was Robert Sniffen, J. David Marsey, Paul Green, and David Leibenhaut. Perhaps you should look up the Pace High School case and gather your information so you can have a better idea of what we're talking about? ? Either you are intentionally trying to muddy the facts...or you truly don't know the details of the convo I was having with Shiloh. Shiloh did not accuse me of lying by asking for a link...duh! I gave you the cases...you can look them up, its not that hard if you are really concerned. Bottom line...I've given everyone more than enough evidence to discern the truth. I suspect that if you really cared you have looked into it yourself by now. Nope, I am not trying to muddy the facts. I am only going by what you said. I never said Shiloh 357 accused you of lying; you've got it backwards ... it's the other way around. shiloh357 said Please provide a link to the actually ruling. As for wiki, YOU were the one who was quoting wiki. I simply googled your post and found the word-for-word citation you pulled from wiki. I simply noted that wiki (which is an unreliable source) had more information that you conveniently omitted because it didn't really speak to the issue raised by the OP. To which you replied Don't start accusing me of lying now just because you are wrong on this one. I'll rephrase it for you. Where did Shiloh357 accuse you of lying when he asked you for a link? And how does this make him wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikki1 Posted December 23, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 98 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,260 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 55 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2009 Blessings, Axxman The individuals were not sued...the Santa Rosa School District and the Principal were. That is who the separate council represented. The individuals were well within their rights to pursue individual council to make sure their rights were not being violated. Since the School District had admitted guilt and had requested that the judge enter a preliminary judgement, and they requested a compliance hearing, the individuals really don't have a case. And again, it has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment because it was a State issue. However, if the case goes to the federal courts it could very well lean on the 14th amendment. Pace High School in Florida is not a separate issue...Pace High School is in the Santa Rosa School District. Also, the judge did not rule "in favor" of the Principal...in fact, the Judge admonished the Principal and accused him of being a bad example to the students for breaking the law. The Judge did drop the charges and accepted the Principals excuse that he had prayed with the students as a habit and had forgotten about the law. Technically, I suppose you could say the ruling "favored" the Principal...but the court did not rule in favor of his actions. You need to read the OP again. Or look up the case. Two teachers were sued.But Liberty Counsel, according to their announcement, decided to represent the faculty, students and staff because the ACLU is clearly violating their First Amendment rights. We are now at the tail end of the case The situation began in August 2008 when two anonymous students sued with the help of the ACLU over long-standing practices at the school allowing prayer at some events. The school's separate counsel had agreed to a consent decree that "essentially bans all Santa Rose County School District employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities," Liberty Counsel reported. The article very clearly points this out when this all started; this very same thing occured at Pace High School in Florida, and the judge ruled in favor of the principal and the students according to the article, and again it has nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment The lawsuit involved all of the employees at the school and infringed upon all of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment and was very well publicized in the Christian sphere, so this case is very well known. I gave you the cases...is it so much to ask that you look them up yourself rather than me having to go to each site and copy/paste a link Yes it is ...I specifically asked you to provide a link so I could read the case for myself. I didn't ask for the case. Because you refuse to do so, I can only think that you have something to hide. If you have a problem with that, then as far as I am concerned, I think you just want to argue without providing any evidence to support what you are saying, and I'm not going to play your game. It's only posting courtesy to provide links to support what one is saying, and you are the only poster that I have come across here that refuses to do so upon request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted December 23, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2009 People seem to gloss over the second part of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Exactly. Christians just need to ignore the unconstitutional crap that is being thrown at them. Civil disobedience can be a virtue. Jesus defied the unjust laws of His day, did He not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikki1 Posted December 23, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 98 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,260 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 55 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2009 People seem to gloss over the second part of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Good point, wyguy And I think Christians need to learn which amendment is relevant to their free speech and protects their religious freedoms under our Constitution so if someone infringes upon it, they are armed and ready to defend their actions. Blessings, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 23, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 23, 2009 kinda odd coming from somebody who will freak out if they don't receive prompt answers to their questions. 2-3 days is not what I call prompt. Anyway, it's obvious we are never going to see eye to eye on this. Call me a dhimmi* and treat me as such if you like, but I would rather join with the Apostles and "testify to what I have seen and heard" than to allow the word of my testimony to be silenced by Caesar or the Sanheidrin. * Ask you Muslim friends if you don't know what I mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted December 24, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2009 Is it too much to ask YOU to back up your claims with the link to the specific ruling that applies to the OP??? You claim to "know" things, but then when asked to provide your source, you act like it is up to everyone ELSE to produce the source. That is a rather backwards approach to a debate. If you have a source, then provide it. You are responsible for the assertions YOU make and that includes the responsibility to provide adequate support for those assertions if you are setting forth those assertions as established fact. Honestly...yeah, it is too much for any of you to ask me for anything. You are wrong...and at this point I think you are aware of that. I HIGHLY doubt that you've gone all this time without looking up the cases I referenced for you...and if you haven't looked them up then you have no real interest in knowing if you were wrong anyway. And my posting a dozen links for you won't change that in any way. My assertions were right, I've given plenty of evidence that they are right, and it is now up to you to prove me wrong. Your inability to rebut anything I've said in reference to the relevancy of the 14th Amendment speaks volumes...and I am okay with that. No, she isn't, and she has made no such assertion or implication to that end. That is a value YOU are assigning to her. Yep...I assigned it. I stand by it. But that is still not material to this issue. These teachers were not promoting or forcing anyone to face their "religious idealogy." You are spinning this to be something it is not. Being a government employee does not mean that you must check your religion at the door. You may be prohibited from actively promoting it on the campus, but it does not preclude anyone praying silently to themselves in or in a private group of like-minded individuals. No one was precluded from praying in private, or with like-minded individuals. You keep saying that, but it is not factual. I've already posted the court order...and so has Nikki...I don't see how you can apply that order to praying privately by yourself, or in private with another person. The order specifically refers to school sponsored functions. The school was actively involved in promoting Christianity and its values to its students...that is a fact...and that is why they admitted guilt. I have old 4th and 5th grade hardback readers that date from the mid 1800's and the days of the one room school house. Those readers used the Bible to teach children how to read. Children ages 8-10 years old were reading words like "concupiscience." The reading comprehension questions pertain asking students (8-10 years old) to discuss in what manner Christ is the propitiation for sin. There was a time when the KJV was considered 5th grade level reading. Compare that with today. Going back further, while Thomas Jefferson was president, the textbook used in the classroom was the Bible. In fact, over 90% of the material contained in the documents dating from our nation's founding came straight out of the biblical text. I'll be real with you here. Thats awesome! As a Christian I wish our society could have maintained that type of Christian moral base. Unfortunately, it has not happened. My kids don't go to school in the mid-1800's...they go to school in 2010 and its a crazy place to learn. My kids are inundated with all manner of worldly ideology. From false religions, to liberalism, to any number of the 'deadly sins' on a daily basis. I can sit back and wish I had been born in the 1800's or I can deal with the world I am in. In this world, there is simply NO WAY I can justify allowing teachers from all different faiths, creeds, ideologies to have free access to my children. I don't want my kids to learn about God (of any faith) from the teachers at their schools. If I lived in a little house on the prairie and the majority of my neighbors based their lives on Christian morals I probably wouldn't give it a second thought....nowadays, half the so-called Christians you meet are off the wall. In light of that...it seems to me that it would be sheer lunacy to allow anyone in a gov't position to use their position to promote or coerce their religious beliefs in their official capacity. In this case, I would protect my children from that possibility as much as possible. No, it isn't. At least, not as it pertains to THIS government. The last thing you want is a government that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible as the supreme authority of our land. You do realize that you couldn't get a straight vote on "who" the God of the Bible is. Heck...I seriously doubt that you could get a straight vote about who "God of the bible" is on this website...and you want a bunch of politicians in Washington to acknowledge the same God? Are you okay with them pronouncing "some Diety" as the Supreme Authority? I doubt you are...but thats the best you are gonna get. All religions have the same rights in the US so long as none of their practices cross over into criminal activity (drugs, human/animal sacrifices, etc.). I agree...there are limits to "free exercise." And there should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted December 24, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2009 kinda odd coming from somebody who will freak out if they don't receive prompt answers to their questions. 2-3 days is not what I call prompt. Anyway, it's obvious we are never going to see eye to eye on this. Call me a dhimmi* and treat me as such if you like, but I would rather join with the Apostles and "testify to what I have seen and heard" than to allow the word of my testimony to be silenced by Caesar or the Sanheidrin. * Ask you Muslim friends if you don't know what I mean Its also obvious that you are not going to answer my questions...which in a way is fitting. I also enjoy the fact that it drives you guys crazy that I enjoy the company of the boogeyman...lol. I'm not exactly sure why I would call you a dhimmi...you are not a dhimmi by definition as you are not under Islamic rule. You also do not have fewer legal or social rights than a Muslim. My muslims friends would laugh at your imagined religious persecution by calling yourself a dhimmi. Clearly, we are not going to see eye to eye on this because you think teachers should be allowed to "testify" whenever or wherever they want to students...I totally disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believer1997 Posted December 24, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 66 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,363 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 9 Joined: 11/07/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2009 Time to call this quits..... Peace on Earth, guys.... Love ya all!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted December 24, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,292 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2009 You need to read the OP again. Or look up the case. Two teachers were sued.But Liberty Counsel, according to their announcement, decided to represent the faculty, students and staff because the ACLU is clearly violating their First Amendment rights. We are now at the tail end of the case You gotta quit reading the OP...lol...you are wrong on this. Two teachers were NOT sued! The School Board for Santa Rosa County and the Principal were sued. No individual teachers are listed as defendants in ANY of the legal documentation. Liberty Council became involved when two employees (neither of them teachers) were found in Contempt of Court for violating the courts preliminary injunction that the school board requested when they admitted guilt. The Liberty Council defended the Principal (Frank Lay) and a clerical assistant against the contempt charges. Liberty Council is trying to get the court order overturned based on 1st amendment violations...but that case is still ongoing. The article very clearly points this out when this all started; this very same thing occured at Pace High School in Florida, and the judge ruled in favor of the principal and the students according to the article, and again it has nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment Pace High School is in the jurisdiction of Santa Rosa County, and is governed by the Santa Rosa School Board...it is all the same case...lol. The judge did NOT rule in favor of the Principal in the lawsuit...the Principal of Pace High School admitted guilt. The judge DID rule in favor of the Principal in the Contempt of court case...that was in Sept. 09. The lawsuit involved all of the employees at the school and infringed upon all of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment and was very well publicized in the Christian sphere, so this case is very well known. It affected all the employees...I'll give you that. It affected all of them equally. However, the only employees actually named as defendants were the School Board and the Principal. Liberty Council is currently attempting to overturn the case on the grounds of 1st amendment violations. Yes it is ...I specifically asked you to provide a link so I could read the case for myself. I didn't ask for the case. Because you refuse to do so, I can only think that you have something to hide. If you have a problem with that, then as far as I am concerned, I think you just want to argue without providing any evidence to support what you are saying, and I'm not going to play your game. It's only posting courtesy to provide links to support what one is saying, and you are the only poster that I have come across here that refuses to do so upon request. Yes...I have something to hide, my conspiracy minded foe...lol. As far as I'm concerned you are happy being wrong and have no desire to seek or know the truth. However, I will give you a link (merely because I don't think you could find the connection yourself unless I hand it to you in a gift box for christmas) ...Westside Board of Ed. v Mergens. In this case the Supreme Court upheld the Equal Access Act...which gets its authority from the 14th Amendment...which the Judge in the Santa Rosa case cited and held the School District and its employees in compliance to in his Consent Decree and Order. If you can't figure out how easy to is to type in a court case at findlaw.com...what makes you think you will be able to comprehend the case once you see it? I personally think this reeks of willful ignorance...thats your problem not mine. Its like I built you a house and you're complaining that you have open the door yourself to get in.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikki1 Posted December 24, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 98 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,260 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 55 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2009 Blessings, Axxman You gotta quit reading the OP...lol...you are wrong on this. Two teachers were NOT sued! The School Board for Santa Rosa County and the Principal were sued. No individual teachers are listed as defendants in ANY of the legal documentation. Liberty Council became involved when two employees (neither of them teachers) were found in Contempt of Court for violating the courts preliminary injunction that the school board requested when they admitted guilt. The Liberty Council defended the Principal (Frank Lay) and a clerical assistant against the contempt charges. Liberty Council is trying to get the court order overturned based on 1st amendment violations...but that case is still ongoing. As a matter of information for you, Axxman, I didn't get this information from the OP. And yes, two teachers were sued. According to my source, the two teachers at Pace High School were Principal Frank Lay and school teacher Michelle Winkler. Pace High School is in the jurisdiction of Santa Rosa County, and is governed by the Santa Rosa School Board...it is all the same case...lol. You finally figured that out I see. The judge did NOT rule in favor of the Principal in the lawsuit...the Principal of Pace High School admitted guilt. The judge DID rule in favor of the Principal in the Contempt of court case...that was in Sept. 09. Basically, you are saying what I already pointed out... , more than once. using different words. I'm glad you are beginning to finally figure out what is going on. Kudos to ya! However, the only reason that the principal and teacher at Pace High School consented to alleged guilt was as I said... he never had proper representation protecting his "individual" Constitutional rights. This is where the ACLU overstepped the principal's (who is also a teacher) Constitutional rights, and tried to pull one over on him. The ACLU of Florida filed the lawsuit, along with the ACLU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts