Reply With Quote
lol tradition
lol cons utional expert
Really?
If that's how you wish to argue it, doesn't 49 years means that the prayer on the wall is already established?
Seems to me, after 49 years, it is already established, and part of tradition.
lol tradition
lol cons utional expert
You've made it clear on a number of occasions that you think you are a libertarian.
Did you finally realize you're not?
49 years of uncons utional establishment
You don't consider it censorship?
I consider a Supreme Court ruling from 1879 to be much more of a precedent than a unilateral action by a religious organization.
If your interpretation was correct them people indigenous to Southern Mexico could perform human sacrifice, Mormon's could be polygamists or Rastafarians csould smoke weed in front of cops.
Prima facia its a stupid notion and SCOTUS has been quite clear on the matter. They do not ignore the legal context just so you can have asinine literal interpretations. Its actually quite similar to what Churches do to explain the nonsense within their doctrine.
That has been firmly established process sine the Marshall courts of the early 19th century.
YOU
ARE
DUMB
Great generalization. Thanks for the info buddy.
everybody is against us!!! why??
signed,
every ing religious group that has ever existed ever
Not just religious groups imo. Identifiable groups in general.
I've actually thought this one over and while I do maintain that this whole thing wasn't necessary the student may not have been entirely in the wrong here. Since obviously her priorities (and those of the town for that matter) are different from mine, from her perspective she was doing the right thing. After all, people have different tolerance levels...
So ElNono, Baseline Bum, and whoever else, I owe you guys an apology.
You don't owe me anything. We're here to discuss.
If they keep it to their own personel workspace, why would a mere poster showing a person you believe is fictional bother you so much.
Does it insult your intelligence?
Is your intelligence very fragile?
A mere poster
A
mere
poster
I personally think religion and by extension its dogma to be a blight on learning. There is about two millennium of evidence. If my child went to a school that had indoctrinating messages on the walls i would mos def have a prob with that.
i would prefer my kids learn truthful things and not have fairly tales and myths presented as truth.
Don't forget to keep your kid away from his evil religious friends, too.
Lol totalitarian parent
So when is the ban on kids wearing yamakas going to come? Already happened in France.
It doesn't bother me at all. I think it's inappropriate and bad for business. This thread being the exact representative of why.
How dumb are you?
Why? I think its important that my kid decides who they like. Thats nothing like a public ins ution that forces that it upon them. If they want to go to church thats fine. I will never force them to go.
You do know I am not an atheist right? Most followers of a monotheistic exclusionary religions always conclude a rejection of religion = rejection of god.
Go back to my original point. If the kids voluntarily want it up there I believe a school can agree to it, as long as they support any others who may want theirs up as well. Otherwise, put a ban on t-shirts, yamakas, discussion, etc that invoke religion because by extension of those things being on school public property, it's the same thing as the banner.
And back to my original point. Majoritarianism is not the way to go in this. You also cannot equate what a child or their family decides to wear and talk about to what a school forces a child to read, discuss or wear. Different standards.
You can try to equate the actions of a public school to the actions of an individual and their family but its definitely apples and oranges.
Yeah if kids want to wear t-shirts with the prayer on it, more power to them. Completely different when it's on the wall of a classroom.
Thing is, if the school had just taken the poster down without any fanfare, it's unlikely anyone would have raised a fuss.
You can equate them. France equated them. Yamakas aren't allowed in public shcools in France. Public property is public property, whether it's a gymnasium or the pavement.
You're child is no more forced to regard a banner in a gymansium than a kid they let attend who wears a yamaka or a girl a hijab that they see everyday taking the same route to class. In fact, it's probably easier to disregard the banner.
The school is not forcing your kid to do anything in either cirumstance.
The school is no more standardizing religious values by following the wishes of a religious group of kids that wants to have a banner up in the gymansium than they are by letting them come to school in religious wear. In both cases, the school is allowing for freedom of expression, in this case religious, not advocating it. That freedom of expression I believe has been undermined in this particular case.
If it happens in the US where we actually can vote to change things then let me know. I disagree with Sarkovy's policy if that makes you feel better.
Painting public school property is quite a bit different.
Its school officials doing it not the kids themselves. Its school sanctioned religion.
Further a majority is no excuse to deprive kids and families that are minorities their rights to practice or not to practice as they see fit, Separation of church and state is clearly defined in legal statutes so its a moot point. You can send your kid to private school if you need a school that does that.
The absence of a banner does not imply some other imaginary banner.
Logic fail.
Would you say the same thing if it had been a muslim asking for it?
A mormon?
Taking down a banner to God does not mean an imaginary banner to Allah was raised in its place, or a banner praising the pope, or a banner praising the Elders.
The first amendment doesn't work that way.
So you are for a mostly muslim school putting up "there is no God but Allah, and mohammed is his prophet" in their gynasium?
Things of that size can only be posted with the explicit permission of the school's administration.
That is vastly different than kids talking about religion in a bible reading club, which is allowed. , you can even pray in the hallways if you want to.
The deliniation between cons utional and uncons utional, is when you use the power of the government to advocate one religion over another.
The same people screaming "free expression" would be the first ones lining up to complain about a Hindu banner put there by a Hindu principal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions