"Fed court orders RI school to remove prayer mural"

[heymikey80]

Cop out. The school has no right to promote one religion over all others. Trying to put forth that it's the "freedom from religion" tripe is nothing more than an attempt to avoid the issue.

Hm. Why would you want to call her quoted comments a cop-out?

One would think she has the right to free speech.

And if you were a school official, then you would be rightly stopped from doing so. If you want to do so as a private citizen, feel free. That's the point of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

So for 40% of one's life their right to free speech is halted.

Hm. It should baffle most people that the government must suppress the speech of a large percentage of the populace.

The absence of religious speech is equally a statement about religious speech. Its absence in school is the problem. In fact to me it constitutes a conscience problem as to why I'm funding the state suppression of religious speech.

 

[Cute Tink]

Hm. Why would you want to call her quoted comments a cop-out?

One would think she has the right to free speech.

Continuing to harp on your twisted issue is not the point. This has nothing to do with whether the student has a right to have her work posted. Now do you want to address why every other student is having their speech silenced by not having their personal works posted all over the school? No? Or is it the fact that this never would have been posted had it not been religious in nature and you cannot quite figure out how to make a legitimate argument for it just driving you nuts?

So for 40% of one's life their right to free speech is halted.

According to you, every student except her is having their speech horrifically silenced by this abusive school because their work is not posted in the school.

Hm. It should baffle most people that the government must suppress the speech of a large percentage of the populace.

This is the school speaking. Not the child.

The absence of religious speech is equally a statement about religious speech.

No it is not.

Its absence in school is the problem. In fact to me it constitutes a conscience problem as to why I'm funding the state suppression of religious speech.

Nice try. The school is forbidden from endorsing religion. You never addressed my questions from before. Why do you insist that the school must teach your religion? Or do you want the school teaching the students to follow every religion in the world? Perhaps you want your churches forced to teach math and science during sermons?

 

[heymikey80]

Continuing to harp on your twisted issue is not the point. This has nothing to do with whether the student has a right to have her work posted. Now do you want to address why every other student is having their speech silenced by not having their personal works posted all over the school? No? Or is it the fact that this never would have been posted had it not been religious in nature and you cannot quite figure out how to make a legitimate argument for it just driving you nuts?

So plaintiff's rights should be suppressed, you say.

But wait, that's the atheist complaining.

To which I'm aghast you would say such a thing, even though I'm sure it was inadvertent. No, both have a right to free speech in the school. Both should be allowed to share their views, in the quantity for which it accomplishes the school's objective to produce an educated, not sheltered, group of adults who don't expect to suppress the rights of others for their own purposes.

In this case the intent was clearly thwarted.

It appears Washington's comments indicate accurately that without religion, the morality of the populace dissolves into anarchy.

According to you, every student except her is having their speech horrifically silenced by this abusive school because their work is not posted in the school.

No, some students are being silenced by the school. And now I suspect more students will be silenced through an oppressive interpretation of the decision. That's generally what happened in schools around here, and in schools elsewhere when these decisions have been imposed.

My nephews were instructed not to call parties a "Christmas party" when they were in school.

Students in youth group reported that some teachers declared that there would be no religious discussions in their class.

Secularization is suppression, just as surely as dictation of a religion.

Nice try. The school is forbidden from endorsing religion. You never addressed my questions from before. Why do you insist that the school must teach your religion? Or do you want the school teaching the students to follow every religion in the world? Perhaps you want your churches forced to teach math and science during sermons?

As I never insisted the school teach my religion, the question isn't directed at me.

I want any public school to be an open forum for religious speech.

Right now it's a platform suppressing religious speech.

 

[Cute Tink]

To which I'm aghast you would say such a thing, even though I'm sure it was inadvertent. No, both have a right to free speech in the school. Both should be allowed to share their views, in the quantity for which it accomplishes the school's objective to produce an educated, not sheltered, group of adults who don't expect to suppress the rights of others for their own purposes.

A student has a right to pray, but not to make the whole school listen to it - a right to speech, not to be heard. But this is not about a student's right to speech. It is about a school attempting to endorse one religion. It has nothing to do with a student's right to speech.

In this case the intent was clearly thwarted.

Yes. The intent to prop Christianity up as the school's religion was thwarted.

It appears Washington's comments indicate accurately that without religion, the morality of the populace dissolves into anarchy.

Not established. Sorry. You are going to have to really back that statement up, because morality can exist and wouldn't be much different from what the US has/had without religion.

My nephews were instructed not to call parties a "Christmas party" when they were in school.

Because "Christmas" is a Christian holiday. Besides, students are in school to learn, not party.

Students in youth group reported that some teachers declared that there would be no religious discussions in their class.

And? Is that the only place students can have a discussion? In what class is a religious discussion appropriate to the subject matter?

Secularization is suppression, just as surely as dictation of a religion.

It is not. Lack of discussion of religion is not the same as suppression of religion.

As I never insisted the school teach my religion, the question isn't directed at me.

You want the school to endorse and/or favor your religion by posting a prayer specific to your religion. Not much of a stretch.

I want any public school to be an open forum for religious speech.

And what class is that appropriate for?

 

[AtheistVet]

Wah! I'm Christian! I'm entitled!

 

[heymikey80]

A student has a right to pray, but not to make the whole school listen to it - a right to speech, not to be heard.

If the student is in a venue where their voice may be heard by the whole school, they do indeed have the right to make the whole school listen to it.

But this is not about a student's right to speech. It is about a school attempting to endorse one religion. It has nothing to do with a student's right to speech.

No, it's about a school showing some approbation for religion in general.

Yes. The intent to prop Christianity up as the school's religion was thwarted.

No, the intent to show appreciation for religion was thwarted, an intent which reaches fully back to the founders of the country.

Not established. Sorry. You are going to have to really back that statement up, because morality can exist and wouldn't be much different from what the US has/had without religion.

I already did. Lookup Washington.

Because "Christmas" is a Christian holiday. Besides, students are in school to learn, not party.

Horse Puckey. They can call it anything they want. Free speech, you remember.

And? Is that the only place students can have a discussion? In what class is a religious discussion appropriate to the subject matter?

Ah. Is that a suppression of religious speech? Yes, yes it is.

Appropriateness to the subject matter cannot be performed by the teacher, as clearly that would be prohibiting religious exercise.

It is not. Lack of discussion of religion is not the same as suppression of religion.

Preventing discussion of religion is prevention both of free speech and religious speech. But thank you very much for demonstrating the point.

You want the school to endorse and/or favor your religion by posting a prayer specific to your religion. Not much of a stretch.

It's not specific to my religion. And your stretch is a religious assessment.

Y'ever hear of a guy named Aratus?

And what class is that appropriate for?

What class is it not appropriate for? Given that if you make this assessment, you will be restricting the free exercise of every religion that disagrees with you.

 

[Cute Tink]

If the student is in a venue where their voice may be heard by the whole school, they do indeed have the right to make the whole school listen to it.

Nooo. They don't. They don't have a right to a venue.

No, it's about a school showing some approbation for religion in general.

Where are the other religions being shown approbation? They aren't.

I already did. Lookup Washington.

Sorry. One, or even many, opinions do not establish something as a fact.

Horse Puckey. They can call it anything they want. Free speech, you remember.

Not a right to a venue you remember.

Ah. Is that a suppression of religious speech? Yes, yes it is.

So you want discussions not related to the subject matter going on in all classes? Because I would prefer that subjects like math would be discussed in math class, grammar in English class, etc. It would seem to be more productive that way.

Appropriateness to the subject matter cannot be performed by the teacher, as clearly that would be prohibiting religious exercise.

Not allowing the students to have religious discussions in math class is not restricting their freedom to follow and worship the religion of their choice. Time, place and manner. And do you even realize the absurdity of this statement. Appropriateness to subject matter cannot be performed by the person teaching the class? Really?

Preventing discussion of religion is prevention both of free speech and religious speech. But thank you very much for demonstrating the point.

Time, place and manner. Taking freedom of speech to the absurd extremes that you want to would render the education system completely ineffective and worthless.

It's not specific to my religion. And your stretch is a religious assessment.

And the absurdity continues. It is never specific to Christianity when the discussion is related to appropriateness in the school. Just like intelligent design. It is stated to be Christian until the topic of school or government comes up. Then it isn't.

What class is it not appropriate for?

Math, English, science, P.E., health, wood shop, home economics, weights, auto shop... What classes did I forget. Instead I will list the classes that it is appropriate for as the list will be shorter: .

 

[CabVet]

Since lots of people here seem to think this is a matter of freedom of speech, I wonder if anybody would defend the banner if it was satanic.

 

[razeontherock]

Correlation does not equal causation, assuming you have stats on this.

How is it that you're not embarrassed to bring up "causation," in this context?

 

[razeontherock]

So apparently there is nowhere outside the SC chambers that doesn't violate the establishment clause.

Oh, wait. There's a mural on the SC building that violates this interpretation.

TONS of stuff like that on our public buildings ... this is getting ridiculous that people think all that needs to be un-done!

 

[Self Improvement]

Since lots of people here seem to think this is a matter of freedom of speech, I wonder if anybody would defend the banner if it was satanic.

Of course not, then it would be Christian persecution to have that banner up.

 

[razeontherock]

Ceremonial deism

Oh this is RICH - Moses and the 10 commandments are now ... deism

in politics is different from religious indoctrination of other people's children by government employees.

Actually there is no difference between the 2 examples, regardless what you might want to call each.

 

[razeontherock]

The US government does not have freedom of speech. Those people can post whatever the hell they want on their own time in their own property. They do not get to shove their religion down others throats while acting as a representative of the US government on government property.

I like how the writing visible on the tablet that Moses holds was apparently specifically choosen because they were not religious. Commandments 6-10

Your point seems to be that our Gov't can't display religious items. This is pure bull! Gov't buildings in the Capitol were used for Church services, and there is religious symbolism, expressly of the Judeo-Christian tradition, all over the place.

It is a modern contrivance to think there's a problem with this!

 

[razeontherock]

Not on individuals. The government is prohibited from "respecting an establishment of religion".

This has NOTHING to do with establishing religion

Those of you against this decision: Why do you want a failing institution (the US education system), which has a track record of being bad at educating students, to be teaching your kids about Christianity?

This has NOTHING to do with teaching Christianity!

 

[razeontherock]

No, no -- you guys are right. Everything I've said, I take it back. I mean, just READ the contents of that prayer?!? That's terrible. Who in their right mind could possibly go along with all those points of religious doctrine trying to be established, at the exclusion of every other religion?

 

[Self Improvement]

No, no -- you guys are right. Everything I've said, I take it back. I mean, just READ the contents of that prayer?!? That's terrible. Who in their right mind could possibly go along with all those points of religious doctrine trying to be established, at the exclusion of every other religion?

The fact of the matter is these people do not even support what the banner says.

Girl at the Center of the Cranston “Prayer Banner” Case targeted by Cyber-Bullies

 

[Self Improvement]

Your point seems to be that our Gov't can't display religious items. This is pure bull! Gov't buildings in the Capitol were used for Church services, and there is religious symbolism, expressly of the Judeo-Christian tradition, all over the place.

It is a modern contrivance to think there's a problem with this!

There is a problem with this. Because something was done in the past does not make it right that it is still done. Christians want exceptional treatment of their religion over other religions. It is about control. It is not acceptable.

 

[razeontherock]

There is a problem with this. Because something was done in the past does not make it right that it is still done. Christians want exceptional treatment of their religion over other religions. It is about control. It is not acceptable.

Apparently it has been acceptable for 99.9% of our Nation's history. You know, all that time we were a great Nation, instead of a pitiful pool of red ink?

 

[razeontherock]

The fact of the matter is these people do not even support what the banner says.

The fact of the matter is it has nothing to do with any specific religion AT ALL, and you yourself would rather see the values promoted by the banner acted upon. What a hypocrite!

 

[Self Improvement]

Apparently it has been acceptable for 99.9% of our Nation's history. You know, all that time we were a great Nation, instead of a pitiful pool of red ink?

The pitiful pool of red ink that bible thumping Christians in congress and the white house have turned us into? Fixed it or ya.