Yeah, that's why you put that Google proof as your link right?
So that those keywords you used to find the results of FFRF going against other religions besides Christianity would show the Google page with allllll those results to choose from.
This says nothing about prohibiting local school boards or teachers from doing whatever they wish, so by your incredibly strict reading it has zero bearing on my question. That's why I ignored it.
But if you think that school employees are now state actors, you're going to have a tough time arguing that a school administrator magically stops being a state actor when they're hanging up a picture of the embodied god of Christianity in a school they run as a representative of the government.
You say one thing, the courts say another : http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/cases/washegesic-v-bloomingdale-public-schools
Atheism is not a religion. It is a position on a religious belief and as such merits religious protection just like the beliefs of other religions. You should look up the definition of religion sometime and also inform yourself about some of the various atheistic and secular religions like Humanism or some schools of Buddhism. Those would be religions, but atheism itself is not, just like theism itself is not any religion but a belief in deities.
The SCOTUS only ruled that atheistic beliefs are to be protected just the same as religious beliefs.
Correct and in a public school, decorations that promote a certain religion, creates a problem.
You're not? You said that your link was easily found with a Google search.The link is to the FFRF themselves. Not sure what you're getting at.
Snide. That's so cute.That's how search engines work, at least at a superficial level.
I still don't see how it's a constitutional violation...
I wasn't aware that "the right to not be exposed to an inanimate object that I don't want to look at" was a constitutional protection, maybe you can point me to the specific verbiage in the constitution that covers that.
There's also no reason to assume that a picture hanging in a hallway somehow to equates to special treatment for any students.
Making the claim that a Jesus picture in a hallway equates to special treatment for Christians is about as big of a stretch as if someone where to claim that a School having "Cesar Chavez" in the name somehow implies special treatment for Latino students.
At the end of the day, people should just be honest about what this is....
It's not about a true advocacy of separation of church and state, if it were, then there are much bigger fish for the FFRF to go after in that regard.
It's not about protecting Children from indoctrination, if it were then they should be going after religious based schools, because, while they're privately funded, their accreditation is regulated by the state (and another poster said earlier, simply being regulated by the state is enough to satisfy the requirement of being a state actor)
It's not about protecting people from religious based legislation...because there are no laws being passed by hanging a picture...and there are plenty of things in society (like anti-abortion laws) that groups could be spending their time fighting against, and have a valid case.
This is simply about one thing for the FFRF, and that is "Taking Christians down a few pegs and letting them know who's boss"...plain and simple.
If anyone from that organization actually thinks a picture in a hallway constitutes religious legislation, then they need to have their IQ checked.
I realize there have been court cases on the matter, but a court's ruling shouldn't be viewed as the "end-all" for the discussion either...simply because the political affiliation of the Justice(s) involved often decides how the case will be handled. For every case where a judge rules to remove a picture...another judge makes a ruling like this:
the Supreme Court gave new support to cities that want to accept and display 10 commandments monuments without being forced to do the same for any and all other groups that want to make a permanent statement as well.
Justice Samuel Alito offered the opinion, finding that a 10 Commandments display in a Utah City Park is government speech, and therefore not subject to first amendment scrutiny.
You may have one judge that thinks a picture is a violation...and another that says that "Government Speech" is protected the same way Personal Speech is when it's not being done in a legislative manner or attempting to dictate the actions of others.
This premise has a few flaws...
1.) It assumes that a decoration's intent is to dictate the behavior of the students based on a specific moral code...which a decoration cannot do...laws/rules/policies are what do that. ...and a picture isn't any one of those 3 things.
2.) Equating hanging a picture in a hallway with the active promotion of an ideal is a big stretch.
Read the details about Government speech and some of the case law associated with it...it's pretty clear that the idea is that government expression need not be neutral, however, Government restrictions do need to be neutral.
In this scenario, hanging a picture isn't a restriction or rule that they're making anyone follow, it's simply an expression.
I'll re-post this court ruling because I feel it drives the point home:
In a nine to zero opinion, the Supreme Court gave new support to cities that want to accept and display 10 commandments monuments without being forced to do the same for any and all other groups that want to make a permanent statement as well.
Justice Samuel Alito offered the opinion, finding that a 10 Commandments display in a Utah City Park is government speech, and therefore not subject to first amendment scrutiny. Further states: "You don't have to put a statue of tyranny next to the Statue of Liberty. You don't have to put up and anti-war monument next to the VFW monument to the veterans."
You said,"Name one." He did. Why wouldn't FFRF's own website saying it was going after a teacher for proselytizing Islam be sufficient evidence for you that it does go after religions other than Christianity?You're not? You said that your link was easily found with a Google search.
The contention was people don't see FFRF going after other religions the way they go after Christianity and Christians.
One link? At FFRF site doesn't refute that.
You said to name one. If you wanted more, why only demand one?If you found more than one proof about FFRF going after more than just Christianity and Christians in a Google search, what's the problem with showing proof of the many hits that search would have afforded?
Glass houses, stones.Snide. That's so cute.
Following the conversation helps immensely. He stated he found hits on Google. When there's only one, that just supports my prior contention. So thanks!You said,"Name one." He did. Why wouldn't FFRF's own website saying it was going after a teacher for proselytizing Islam be sufficient evidence for you that it does go after religions other than Christianity?
You said to name one. If you wanted more, why only demand one?
How's your view? No opportunity missed huh?Glass houses, stones.
You said to name one. He named one. That post is still there for everyone to see.Following the conversation helps immensely. He stated he found hits on Google. When there's only one, that just supports my prior contention. So thanks!
Art without meaning is like food without taste.Then pick art that doesn't have a religious meaning to it.
He didn't say art without meaning, he said art without religious meaning. You're smarter than that.Art without meaning is like food without taste.
How does "one" support your contention that there are "none"? Do please explain?Following the conversation helps immensely. He stated he found hits on Google. When there's only one, that just supports my prior contention. So thanks!
How's your view? No opportunity missed huh?
It absolutely does...if you're setting policies (legislative action) for state property, then you become a state actor, and thus, have to abide by the same rules as the government would in terms of what kinds of legislative actions are allowed, and what kinds aren't allowed. If you're merely hanging a picture, it'd be government speech (at most), which isn't confined to the rules of the first amendment (per the 9-0 ruling I noted earlier)
You're not? You said that your link was easily found with a Google search.
The contention was people don't see FFRF going after other religions the way they go after Christianity and Christians.
Name one.
A case that FFRF has been involved in that is not one set against Christians.
If you found more than one proof about FFRF going after more than just Christianity and Christians in a Google search, what's the problem with showing proof of the many hits that search would have afforded?
Please do read me right before you ask questions of what I said.How does "one" support your contention that there are "none"? Do please explain?
Please do read me right before you ask questions of what I said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?