House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

SheikBen wrote:Tell me, Ziggy and TerryRC, would you oppose a student thanking Nature's God in a valediction?

It would depend on whether the school authorities were complicit in it, and how. If a high school principal or teacher graduation advisor recruited a student specifically to thank Nature's God or any other God, I might oppose it.

But if a student were prompted only by his or her conscience to simply thank Nature's God or any other God for the beautiful day, the beautiful school, a beautiful life, etc., without extended prosytelyzing, I might be OK with it.

Despite Cato's insistance to the contrary, the cases that made it to the federal Courts involved more than a student's casual conscientious thanking of his or her God. But Cato chooses to ignore the case evidence of absolute encouragement and collusion by school authorities in those federal cases. And since Cato is unbiased and unprejudiced- as evidenced by his saying so here- we must give great deference to Cato's version of things- though it be in conflict with the Court's records.

It doesn't matter what you're ok with, it matters what the constitution says and if the school is not sponsoring religion, you're violating an individuals rights.

PERIOD.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Tell me, Ziggy and TerryRC, would you oppose a student thanking Nature's God in a valediction?

It would depend on whether the school authorities were complicit in it, and how. If a high school principal or teacher graduation advisor recruited a student specifically to thank Nature's God or any other God, I might oppose it.

But if a student were prompted only by his or her conscience to simply thank Nature's God or any other God for the beautiful day, the beautiful school, a beautiful life, etc., without extended prosytelyzing, I might be OK with it.

Despite Cato's insistance to the contrary, the cases that made it to the federal Courts involved more than a student's casual conscientious thanking of his or her God. But Cato chooses to ignore the case evidence of absolute encouragement and collusion by school authorities in those federal cases. And since Cato is unbiased and unprejudiced- as evidenced by his saying so here- we must give great deference to Cato's version of things- though it be in conflict with the Court's records.

I notice that you are non-committal. Here you state: "But if a student were prompted only by his or her conscience to simply thank Nature's God or any other God for the beautiful day, the beautiful school, a beautiful life, etc., without extended prosytelyzing, I might be OK "

Why would free speech be tempered by its extended duration?

If I were at a high school graduation (it's been quite awhile), and someone were to give an extended speech that I found offensive, my first thought would not be for a lawsuit. I have been at some good speeches and at some dismal ones (my wife's college graduation speaker was particularly unfortunate), but again, I don't think that the courts are the ones to "declare" appropriateness. I had the right to leave the gym (I didn't take it) and to doze off (I tried so hard but it was too hot).

Freedom of speech must mean freedom to give boring, offensive, religious, or rambling speeches if it is to mean anything at all.

Aaron wrote:It doesn't matter what you're ok with,

It does as to answering SheikBen's direct question about what I would oppose. Why is that a problem for you?

it matters what the constitution says and if the school is not sponsoring religion, you're violating an individuals rights.

And if the school is sponsoring religion, it is in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments. The evidence in the files of the cases that Cato has several times complained about here is that the schools were sponsoring religion. I commend Cato on his legal research. I just diagreee with his conclusion that the Courts are always wrong.

Allowing a student to say a prayer IS NOT sponsoring a religion. That's a fallacy created by those like you.

Aaron wrote:Allowing a student to say a prayer IS NOT sponsoring a religion. That's a fallacy created by those like you.

Depending on how it comes about, it certainly can be a sponsorship of religion by the school that orchestrates it. And the federal Courts agree, and have prohibited it.

If the school sponsored it, then it should be prohibited. But without the case cited, we have no idea if it's some activist liberal judge expressing his agenda or if it's a legitimate case. Because if it's not school sponsored religion, then it's a violation of the individuals right. And for the record, simply allowing a student it pray doesn't meet the criteria of state sponsorship.

Only if or when School Administrators instruct a student to say or recite a Religious prayer would it be "school sponsored".

Only if or when School Administrators write the "speech" or dictate/mandate the contents of a "speech" given by a student would it be "school sponsored".

If the public had been less concerned about the "free speech" rights of students ...... and more concerned about the Administrators and Teachers expressing their un-Constitutional views and beliefs to their students ...... then the US would not now be on a "fast track" of destroying our democracy and our Constitutional Republic.


.

It is a God given right to speak your mind without the government being used to stop you. You may not like what is being said, but you nor your ACLU buddies have a right to silence a person. The sad part is you support the use of government to silence people and then you have the guts to say you believe in liberty.

Typical douchebag Willy retort. All pathos, no substance.

Speak of your god all you like. Don't use my school, paid for by my tax money, to do it.

Use your church's tax-free money to do it.

You have the right to speak your mind. You do not have the right to have the government pay for it.

I don't actually expect you to grasp the subtlety of this.

It's not "your" school. It is "our" school and unless the school is specifically writing or endorsing the speech or refusing to allow alternative religions the right to speak, restricting what an individual says is a 2 violations of their first amendment, the right to freedom of speech and the right to the free exercise of religion.

Why? There is nothing in the Constitution that says a student cannot use a podium, state owned or not, as a pulpit. All the constitution says is that the state CANNOT sponsor it over another religion and if they are giving free access to ALL religions, they are not sponsoring it over other religions.

Snort. Just like the "faith-based charity money", christians are ALWAYS favored in this country.

But by the state prohibiting speech, that IS a violation of the first amendment.

Actually, it's 2 violations of the first amendment.

I didn't realize you were a constitutional scholar.

When you are using a government-owned podium to proselyte, you do not have the right to promote ANY religion.

Use your own money for that.

Like I said, the example I cited, the girl wasn't saying a prayer, she was giving the crowd her testament, after she was told not to.

If she really wanted to be cool, she should have refused to speak at all and make it known why.

Nope, she chose to be a disobedient "martyr" to flog the chumps into screaming "oppression".

Suckers.

It's not "your" school. It is "our" school and unless the school is specifically writing or endorsing the speech or refusing to allow alternative religions the right to speak, restricting what an individual says is a 2 violations of their first amendment, the right to freedom of speech and the right to the free exercise of religion.

It is my school, though. I have the right to keep people from using it to push religion on my children. Should I be able to use the school to teach your kids about scientology and how it it the true path to salvation? Many would be mortified.

Religion in school is like candy in class. Unless you can bring enough for everyone, leave it at home.

You are not allowed to use schools to proselytize. It is promoting one religion over another.

This has been upheld in court after "activist" court.

I didn't see an example. You'll have to point it out again.

And what makes someone a constitutional scholar?

However, what they did believe is that to force one to support with their tax dollars, policy or religion in which they did not choose to participate was tyranny. They also believed that every person had the right to speak their mind.

You mean like using my tax dollars and my school to preach to the masses?

I didn't see an example. You'll have to point it out again.

The Sheik did. He even new the case I was referring to.

Go back and read.

Tell me, Ziggy and TerryRC, would you oppose a student thanking Nature's God in a valediction?

Not at all. I don't care if the student thanks god. When she calls others to do so, that is stepping over the line.

That is what churches and streetcorner preachers are for. are for.

I'm not reading 8 pages of this thread to find your post. If you can't provide a link, then it's not relevant.

TerryRC wrote:This has been upheld in court after "activist" court.

In Reynolds V. US, the court specifically said that "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."

Is that the activist court you're referring to?

If the school sponsored it, then it should be prohibited. But without the case cited, we have no idea if it's some activist liberal judge expressing his agenda or if it's a legitimate case. Because if it's not school sponsored religion, then it's a violation of the individuals right. And for the record, simply allowing a student it pray doesn't meet the criteria of state sponsorship.

From a right-wingish website:

http://www.tldm.org/News9/PersecutionValedictorianSpeech.htm

Other sources that I have read state that the student's speech was more that a simple "thanks god and jesus".

We'll see.

No matter what, the student lied. She said she would stick to the vetted speech and then went ahead and did what she wanted.

Honorable.

"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The separationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."

So unless a school is specifically showing preference to one religion or is restricting the rights of alternative religions, then to restrict a students speech is clearly a violation of the first amendment, as the example you cited is.

A girl thanking God is not preaching, and even if it is, unless others are prevented from equal time or the school specifically instructed her what to say, this does not meet the criteria of state sponsored religion.

It does however violate her right to free speech and her free exercise of religion.

Is that the activist court you're referring to?

You lack any sense of subtlety...

I was thinking of this one:

In 1962, the Supreme Court extended this analysis to the issue of prayer and religious readings in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court determined it unconstitutional by a vote of 6-1 for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs, including even "non-sectarian" teacher-led prayers, e.g. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country," which was part of the prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision. As the Court stated:

This is an open and shut case, like it or not.

If you want your kids to have religious instruction, send them, by all means. Just don't expect my tax dollars to pay for it.

Nothing could be more simple.

It does however violate her right to free speech and her free exercise of religion.

Let her stand on the street corner and do it, then.

Of course, she wouldn't be able to take advantage of the captive audience. Makes me wonder if that isn't what this was all about...

TerryRC wrote:Is that the activist court you're referring to?

You lack any sense of subtlety...

I was thinking of this one:

In 1962, the Supreme Court extended this analysis to the issue of prayer and religious readings in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court determined it unconstitutional by a vote of 6-1 for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs, including even "non-sectarian" teacher-led prayers, e.g. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country," which was part of the prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision. As the Court stated:

This is an open and shut case, like it or not.

If you want your kids to have religious instruction, send them, by all means. Just don't expect my tax dollars to pay for it.

Nothing could be more simple.

I agree with that 100% and that's EXACTLY what I've been saying. But the case you cited doesn't meet that criteria. The girls rights were violated and as such, those who violated them should have been punished.

I agree with that 100% and that's EXACTLY what I've been saying. But the case you cited doesn't meet that criteria. The girls rights were violated and as such, those who violated them should have been punished.

Except all speeches must be vetted by school officials, making them tacit sponsors, also.

Nice try.