Who's rights do you support?

[92bDad]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94397

So what is the perspective of you the people regarding the linked story and issue?

This is the story about the Student who prayed for a teacher and is being suspended as a result of another teacher.

[MX425]

This is ridiculous. It won't even stand up in California courts.

[chumdawg]

Probably ought to just burn the college down.

[Mavdog]

I support the right of the college to establish its rules and to enforce those rules.

I support the right of the student to decide what school they wish to attend, and to be provided the school's rules. they either follow those rules or go to another school who has rules the student can accept.

[92bDad]

So in a country that was based on Freedom of Religion...and yes, I can provide more details on this topic if needed.

A school that is PUBLIC and thus received Tax Funding...is allowed to disallow a student's right to PRAY?

I hope the ACLU is standing up for the student!!!

[left texas]

And people wonder why our country is going to hell in a hand basket.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I support the right of the college to establish its rules and to enforce those rules.

I support the right of the student to decide what school they wish to attend, and to be provided the school's rules. they either follow those rules or go to another school who has rules the student can accept.

I agree 100%...

Problem here is that the school doesn't have any rules against non-disruptive, private prayer between consenting adults...

This isn't a case of Separation of Church and State (which I strongly support) - it's pure religious intolerance on the part of the administration and the teacher who walked in on them (especially because they didn't ask anyone to join their prayer...)

If the US Constitution holds more value than a sheet of toilet paper, then the judge should laugh this case right out of court - America only guarantees Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion...




[and for the record - I have a LOT of reservations with organized religion, but I have even bigger reservations about oppressing one's spiritual beliefs...]

[mcsluggo]

as that story is written, it is obviously problematic....
... any takers on a bet as to whether there is more to the story?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

So in a country that was based on Freedom of Religion...and yes, I can provide more details on this topic if needed.

A school that is PUBLIC and thus received Tax Funding...is allowed to disallow a student's right to PRAY?

I hope the ACLU is standing up for the student!!!

freedom of religion does not equate to the freedom to express one's religious beliefs wherever and whenever one wants.

[92bDad]

UD,

Here's a note on Separation of church and state:

__________________________________________________ ____________________

One of the most misused phrases in American culture is "separation of church and state." We hear this all the time. We can't have a Nativity scene in the town square because it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. We can't have a prayer before a football game because it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The city manager of Eugene, Oregon, banned Christmas trees from public buildings, believe it or not, because they violated the constitutional separation of chruch and state -- or so he said.

Hear me on this one, people. There is NO such thing as separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. Is nowhere to be found in the entire dobument. The First Amendment simply states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitin the free exercise therof." It articulates a freedom of religion, not a freedom from it. The polemical history of the First Amendment grows more and more contentous.
__________________________________________________ _______________________

To better understand this document, one must understand the times. When the Constitution was written, the States had their own state religions, thus the federal government didn't want to dictate to the individual states what that would be.

Here's a note that was written in the North Carolina Constitution which gives us an example of belief and original intent:

"That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the Divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state, shall be capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department within this state"

Several states, instead of requiring an office-holder to be Protestant, merely required a professed belief in God.

Basically the founding fathers were careful NOT to step on this right of the states to choose their own religion.

Basically instead of a Separation of Church and State, their is a clear PROTECTION of religious expression outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Thus any Supreme court ruling regarding local school matters, like having prayers at ball games, are a violation of the very Constitution they swear to uphold.


The issue of how we got here is summed up in "Legal Precedence"

Basically we are getting further and further from the original intent of the Constitution and thus placing court rulings at a higher value.

What we see is through time the original intent has been distorted to the point that today, many people no longer understand the purpose this was written.

We are a nation that is free to express our faith or express our non-faith. To impose one's non-faith is UnConstitutional.

[Underdog]

Um - I know how Separation of Church & State works and already stated that this matter has nothing to do with it (even though it's being framed that way...)

Don't derail your own thread, especially when I'm basically agreeing with you...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Hear me on this one, people. There is NO such thing as separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. Is nowhere to be found in the entire dobument. The First Amendment simply states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitin the free exercise therof." It articulates a freedom of religion, not a freedom from it. The polemical history of the First Amendment grows more and more contentous.

wow, what a load of crap.

the language is clear that the state cannot do anything which endorses a specific religion nor do anything that endorses a religious ideal, and cannot limit the citizen's right to practice their religion.

that's a clear definition of "separation of church and state" (which btw was a phrase written by thos. jefferson)

To better understand this document, one must understand the times. When the Constitution was written, the States had their own state religions, thus the federal government didn't want to dictate to the individual states what that would be.

bs, many states already had a similar element protecting the citizens from a state religion (rhode island comes to mind), so to claim that "the states had their own state religions" is just plain wrong.

Basically instead of a Separation of Church and State, their is a clear PROTECTION of religious expression outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

it is BOTH! they are not mutually exclusive, and in fact are in harmony with each other.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

wow, what a load of crap.

the language is clear that the state cannot do anything which endorses a specific religion nor do anything that endorses a religious ideal, and cannot limit the citizen's right to practice their religion.

that's a clear definition of "separation of church and state" (which btw was a phrase written by thos. jefferson)

The key is the phrase "an establishment" as opposed to "the establishment." It is not merely outlawing the creation of a state-sponsored church, but any law which prefers one religion over another, in any area.

[92bDad]

By the way the "State" which Jefferson is referring to is Congress "Legislature"

This was written in a letter from 1802 to the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut.

Essentially his point was that the Federal Government was not going to decide on an official religion...he believed that this was best left up to the states. Basically he supported State's rights on this issue and did not want the Federal Government interfering with the State's rights.

Congress is the ONLY entity restrained by the establishment clause. Not State Legislatures. Not local school boards. Congress.

By the way, let's not forget...Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the framing of the Constitution...he's the Declaration of Independance guy...Jefferson was away in France at the time of the Framing of the Constitution.

But as Jefferson appears to be the Founding Father of Choice on this issue...let's look at few other words written by Jefferson:

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

"If ever there was a holy ware, it was that which saved our liberties and gave us independence." (Reference to the Revolutionaly War)

__________________________________________________ ____________________

How do separationists debate the topic of "School Sponsored Religion" and a Student "Free Speech"?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I support the right of the college to establish its rules and to enforce those rules.

I support the right of the student to decide what school they wish to attend, and to be provided the school's rules. they either follow those rules or go to another school who has rules the student can accept.

Wait Wait Wait.


You support the rights of a business over the rights of individuals.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So a business (restaurant/college) should be able to make its rules and enforce them, even if they infringe upon the rights of the individuals....... Like for race or religion..... and the person only has the right to go to another business if they can't accept these rules..........

IE restaurants should be able to not allow "Group X" people to eat/drink/pray there because they will enforce their rules.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is not like you Mav...not like you at all.

The restaurant is only an example of the past that we are suppose to be getting away from.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Congress is the ONLY entity restrained by the establishment clause. Not State Legislatures. Not local school boards. Congress.

One hundred percent false. Where you do get this stuff? Have you ever heard of the process of incorporation? The Bill of Rights also applies to the states. Almost every single right, including the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause, apply to the states. See Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) for Establishment and Free Exercise, respectively.

Your knowledge of Constitutional Law is rather rudimentary. Argue against Incorporation all you want, but it's on the books as law.

[92bDad]

In Everson v. Board of Education , Justice Hugo Black opined that the First Amendment forbids any interaction between church and government. He said that Jefferson's "Wall(of separation)...must be kept high and impregnable." That was a reference to President Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conneticut. The stae religion in Connecticut at the time was Congregationalism, and they had petitioned the president for aid in religious disestablishment, which Jefferson himself had advocated as governor of Virginia. The Danbury Baptists were disappointed when the president failed to intervene on the grounds that the federal government was strictly forbidden from interfering in state matters.

Although Jeferson used the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" in the letter to the Danbury Baptists, you have to look at the letter in context. The full statment reads, "I contemplate with sovereign revernce that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishement of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State.'" The "State" to which he referred is clearly Congress, which he calls the "legislature." And, of course he's right. The First Amendment clearly prohibits Congress from getting involved in the establishment of a national religion, and the reason is obvious. Congress is prohibited from doing so because that right was reserved for the states and the states alone.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

In Everson v. Board of Education , Justice Hugo Black opined that the First Amendment forbids any interaction between church and government. He said that Jefferson's "Wall(of separation)...must be kept high and impregnable." That was a reference to President Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conneticut. The stae religion in Connecticut at the time was Congregationalism, and they had petitioned the president for aid in religious disestablishment, which Jefferson himself had advocated as governor of Virginia. The Danbury Baptists were disappointed when the president failed to intervene on the grounds that the federal government was strictly forbidden from interfering in state matters.

Although Jeferson used the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" in the letter to the Danbury Baptists, you have to look at the letter in context. The full statment reads, "I contemplate with sovereign revernce that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishement of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State.'" The "State" to which he referred is clearly Congress, which he calls the "legislature." And, of course he's right. The First Amendment clearly prohibits Congress from getting involved in the establishment of a national religion, and the reason is obvious. Congress is prohibited from doing so because that right was reserved for the states and the states alone.

So you say the decision was wrong. Fine. But don't say that it's still not the decision. That's precisely what you did.

[92bDad]

I stated earlier that the issue is that we get further and further away from the Constitution and instead we rely on "Legal Precedence" thus giving that a higher value that the Constitution itself.

We've traveled down this road and it is clearly a dangerous path for our nation.

As it stands, it remains an issue of State's rights. The left has taken the constitution and twisted away from its orginal intent.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

I stated earlier that the issue is that we get further and further away from the Constitution and instead we rely on "Legal Precedence" thus giving that a higher value that the Constitution itself.

We've traveled down this road and it is clearly a dangerous path for our nation.

As it stands, it remains an issue of State's rights. The left has taken the constitution and twisted away from its orginal intent.

"The Constitution is just a piece of paper" - G.W. Bush