Guest shiloh357 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Dec 18 2009, 02:29 PM) There have been no rulings in these types of cases. If there were you could cite them. Oh...there have been...and I will cite them...but it has been fun watching you bury yourself...hehe.If that were true you could actually cite the Supreme Court ruling you mentioned earlier. This is not about school prayer. This is not about anyone being discriminated against or anyone's equal protection being violated. For that reason this type of case has not been ruled on the Supreme Court. This is about school employees and their right to pray privately or to even display a posture of agreement with someone else who is praying. I think part of the proablem here is that you are having a different debate than the rest of us. QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Dec 18 2009, 02:29 PM) Yeah it is how you represented this situation. You have tried to tie this to the equal protection clause and it doesn't apply here at all. Actually, yeah it does tie into the equal protection clause. Get your wiki-skills ready.... In Cantwell v Connecticut, the Supreme Court incoporated the free excercise clause into the 14th Amendment. It has used that decision to do so repeatedly since then.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. You should write fiction...lol. I would have thought that you would actually take the time to read the court order. First, the court order doesn't reference "anytime they are on campus"...or especially private time in a bathroom. The court order doesn't reference private prayer.From the OP: "Under an order crafted by the ACLU, school employees in Santa Rosa School District must act in an "official capacity" whenever they are at a "school event" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted December 22, 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 22, 2009 If that were true you could actually cite the Supreme Court ruling you mentioned earlier. This is not about school prayer. This is not about anyone being discriminated against or anyone's equal protection being violated. For that reason this type of case has not been ruled on the Supreme Court. This is about school employees and their right to pray privately or to even display a posture of agreement with someone else who is praying. I think part of the proablem here is that you are having a different debate than the rest of us. Nope, the problem is that I'm involved in a convo here with a bunch of people who don't know the law and they started right off with trying to call me out like I was an idiot. You haven't even read the court order. All you've read is a WND article and you are acting like you have a grasp on what this case is about. This particular case won't even go to court because the defendants have already admitted guilt. 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. Don't start accusing me of lying now just because you are wrong on this one. When I posted that line from wiki...it was merely to show a connection between the free exercise clause and the 14th amendment...which people were denying even existed. It wasn't to provide a connection or link to the case in the OP. People were acting like I was an idiot because I bothered to mention something that should be common knowledge...and I merely showed the connection. Furthermore, wikipedia is a good source of info...but not be used as a stand-alone source. I've given you all the info you need to do your own research. Don't pretend you don't know how to google the cases for yourself...and don't ask me to do it for you. Every case I provided shows a clear connection between the free exercise clause and the 14th amendment. From the OP: "Under an order crafted by the ACLU, school employees in Santa Rosa School District must act in an "official capacity" whenever they are at a "school event" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted December 22, 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 22, 2009 This whole thread is moot; there's no law in the U.S. that prohibits worship or prayer. NONE! And if some prinicipality makes one...it's unconstitutional. Schools may say no one can pray on campus but they can't enforce it. I suggest that every Christian ignore these stupid rules.....all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 22, 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 22, 2009 The ACLU simply is against teachers affiliating their religion with the school and its functions...and I agree! "the word of their testimony..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted December 22, 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 22, 2009 Thanks you for the specifics, Axx. It still doesn't make sense to me how they got from A (the ammendment) to C (the ruling on religion), but hey..... Anyway, if you would share your thoughts on this, please? It actually didn't start with religion...it started with race. Many of the civil rights laws that freed African Americans from prejudice and gave them freedom stemmed from the 14th amendment. Well, during Cantwell v Connecticut the court decided that if the 14th could apply to racial discrimination, it could apply to any discrimination...including religious. It became a rolling stone after that. Alot of people hate the 14th Amendment. Many religious groups think it was devised and is used as a push towards secular humanism...precisely because it demands neutrality. As with other amendments...its not how it is written that is necessarlily important, its how it is defined by the court. Anyway, I was reading a book that made an interesting point. How do we overcome the enemy? "By the blood of the Lamb, and the word of our testimony, and [we]do not love our lives so much as to shrink from death." If the enemy can prevent us from either of these, he's got us caught. What we see happening here is the enemy silencing "the word of our testimony." Don't you think? I see your point...and maybe you are right. I think for me the issue hinges on the fact that this isn't an anti-Christian thing. This isn't a way to silence Christians, nor is it intended to be. First of all, it applies to all religions equally, not just Christianity. Secondly, it is an issue of fairness. I don't want my tax dollars spent to promote abortion...someone else may not want their tax dollars spent to promote religion. I think thats fair. Especially in light of the fact that I'm not too keen on having my tax dollars spent to promote religion either. I'm inclined to have the opinion that if a Christian feels that strongly that the "word of their testimony" is being stiffled by this law...then maybe they shouldn't work in gov't areas that require them to take money from taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted December 22, 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 22, 2009 This whole thread is moot; there's no law in the U.S. that prohibits worship or prayer. NONE! And if some prinicipality makes one...it's unconstitutional. Schools may say no one can pray on campus but they can't enforce it. I suggest that every Christian ignore these stupid rules.....all of the time. I can only imagine that you make the same suggestion to Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, etc... teachers to ignore civil rights and pray publicly with their students... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 22, 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 22, 2009 Thanks for responding. OK, but do you see the problem here? A teacher praying isn't promoting anything to the students. The teachers aren't trying to lead the students into prayer - that would be promoting. But that isn't what they are doing. According to the group, school officials are strictly prohibited from showing agreement with anyone "communicating with a deity," such as "bowing the head" or "folding hands." "School officials" must also prohibit "third-parties" from praying, Liberty Counsel said. How is this promoting? Denise Gibson, an elementary teacher for 20 years, testified that the order requires her to inform parents that she cannot respond if they mention church or their faith. She said she is prohibited from replying to e-mails from parents if they contain Bible verses or even "God bless you." Instead, she said, the district has instructed her to open a separate e-mail to answer the parents rather than hit "reply." The district calls for the action to eliminate any trace of religious language in school communication. Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Nope, the problem is that I'm involved in a convo here with a bunch of people who don't know the law and they started right off with trying to call me out like I was an idiot. You haven't even read the court order. All you've read is a WND article and you are acting like you have a grasp on what this case is about. I see, so the article in the OP just made it up?? The issues raised in the article are fictitious?? Essentially, that is what you are saying. I've given you all the info you need to do your own research. Don't pretend you don't know how to google the cases for yourself...and don't ask me to do it for you.You are the one saying that the Supreme Court has ruled on this type of case and I and others have asked you to cite the ruling. The fact that you can't or won't cite the ruling is telling. You are the one making the assertion. It is up to you to prove your assertions. The onus is not on me to prove your statements. Just cite the speific ruling you say exists. It is a simple request. Pretending that you are somehow offended that I would make that kind of request is a rather transparent dodge. Really...you need to read the court order for yourself. I have it right in front of me. The problem is that what we have here is a wide latitude of interpretation as to what actions actually constitute a violation of those five main points. We already have liberals who contend that any action of a religious nature on public property amounts to "establishment" of religion, which is absurd, but that very liberal and broad interpretation could be applied here so that even praying silently on campus to one's self can be considered a violation, and from reading both the OP and the court order it seems this appears to be the case. This particular case won't even go to court because the defendants have already admitted guilt. but not to wrongdoing. They may have in some broad, liberal, absurd interpretation, broken the law, but they did nothing wrong and nothing deserving of punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 22, 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 22, 2009 This whole thread is moot; there's no law in the U.S. that prohibits worship or prayer. NONE! And if some prinicipality makes one...it's unconstitutional. Schools may say no one can pray on campus but they can't enforce it. I suggest that every Christian ignore these stupid rules.....all of the time. I can only imagine that you make the same suggestion to Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, etc... teachers to ignore civil rights and pray publicly with their students... But in this case, the teachers weren't praying with the students, were they? The case is arguing the teachers can't even show religious expression of prayer. Do you "Amen!" this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axxman Posted December 22, 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 22, 2009 Thanks for responding. OK, but do you see the problem here? A teacher praying isn't promoting anything to the students. The teachers aren't trying to lead the students into prayer - that would be promoting. But that isn't what they are doing. According to the group, school officials are strictly prohibited from showing agreement with anyone "communicating with a deity," such as "bowing the head" or "folding hands." "School officials" must also prohibit "third-parties" from praying, Liberty Counsel said. How is this promoting? Denise Gibson, an elementary teacher for 20 years, testified that the order requires her to inform parents that she cannot respond if they mention church or their faith. She said she is prohibited from replying to e-mails from parents if they contain Bible verses or even "God bless you." Instead, she said, the district has instructed her to open a separate e-mail to answer the parents rather than hit "reply." The district calls for the action to eliminate any trace of religious language in school communication. Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous? I disagree. The Pace High School Teachers Manual tells teachers not to smoke on campus or in the view of students...wonder why? Could it be because they don't even want to have the appearance of promoting such a dangerous habit to kids? I also think you are mistaken that the teachers aren't trying to promote praying. I think the teachers are trying to innoculate and impress upon the children their religious values. I think that has been going on at the school and i think thats why they admitted guilt without a trial. About the emails...I don't think I would have an issue with it...until I started getting Wiccan greetings, or yogic expressions, or any number of other pseudo-religious, or politically ideological things in the emails from a teacher. Then suddenly...it makes sense. I don't view this as a christian only thing...this applies to all teachers of all religions...and in light of that it makes sense to me. I think it should also be noted that it is the school district that has instructed her to operate in this manner. There was no specific mention of this in the court order. But in this case, the teachers weren't praying with the students, were they? Yes, they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts