Another Example of Atheists Destroying Christian's Rights

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@ITR_champion

Actually it isn’t a violation of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment doesn’t mention public schools, as you can see by reading it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So the 1st Amendment only restricts what Congress can do.

Is it 1867 where you are? Because otherwise you’re wrong.

ETA: Though admittedly Marley is too.

[XT]

It reminds me of the waning days of segregation during the civil rights era when there was so much resistance and rancor over a change in the status quo…and so much fear over that change. I think we’re seeing the same thing here, as well as on the question of homosexuality and marriage (kind of related quasi-religious themes). What’s sickening here is that people would attack and/or threaten a sixteen year old over something like this…but, to me it shows that the facade is cracking and the winds of change are really starting to blow. I think this kid does deserve any award she gets for being so brave and for all the shit she has gotten and will continue to get. Bad as it is, it’s stuff like this that enacts and forwards the change and etches it into the publics collective consciousness. For me, the civil rights movement crystalized and became ‘real’ when I say young black CHILDREN having dogs barking at them pr water hoses turned on them…pr having to be escorted to class through a mob of hate filled people by the National Guard. The folks making threats against this kid are equally on the wrong side of history, IMHO.

-XT

[FinnAgain]

@ITR_champion

Actually it isn’t a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Yes, it is. Just like it isn’t true that states can suppress free speech but only Congress can’t. Your argument is deceptive, disingenuous and mildly disgusting.
Cut it out.

[Marley23]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

ETA: Though admittedly Marley is too.

Where did I go out of bounds here?

[Oakminster]

@Czarcasm

Shouldn’t we find a group of Lions that would have a chance of winning against a team of unarmed opponents?

You’re about a year too late with that joke. The Lions made the playoffs last season, but lost in the Wildcard round to the Saints.

[Airbeck]

@Oakminster

You’re about a year too late with that joke. The Lions made the playoffs last season, but lost in the Wildcard round to the Saints.

Not if all of their players keep getting arrested. At the current rate, they almost won’t be able to field a complete team by the time the season starts lol.

[ITR_champion]

@Marley23

The First Amendment has long been interpreted as prohibiting state establishment of religion, and a public school is part of the state. It does not only apply to Congress.

Obviously I’m aware that many people. includingjudges, have chosen to interpret the First Amendment as meaning something close to the opposite of what it actually says. Nevertheless, the First Amendment says what it says, regardless of how people interpret it. Why say “X violates the First Amendment” when the actual truth is that it violates some judge’s order?

In any case, a banner is obviously not an establishment of religion.

[hajario]

That young lady is a hero.

[XT]

@ITR_champion

Obviously I’m aware that many people. includingjudges, have chosen to interpret the First Amendment as meaning something close to the opposite of what it actually says. Nevertheless, the First Amendment says what it says, regardless of how people interpret it. Why say “X violates the First Amendment” when the actual truth is that it violates some judge’s order?

In any case, a banner is obviously not an establishment of religion.

You seriously think that the intention was for the Amendments to only apply at the Federal level, and that states could just ignore them? I realize that in practice this was done to the Second, bit you think that was the intent for all of them??

-XT

[rat_avatar]

@ITR_champion

Obviously I’m aware that many people. includingjudges, have chosen to interpret the First Amendment as meaning something close to the opposite of what it actually says. Nevertheless, the First Amendment says what it says, regardless of how people interpret it. Why say “X violates the First Amendment” when the actual truth is that it violates some judge’s order?

In any case, a banner is obviously not an establishment of religion.

If you will go read the ruling you will see that the community does not hold your view.

They fought to keep it exactly because it did “establish” them as a christian community.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10811058226814137027&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[dropzone]

@GEEPERS

Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.

I’m surprised the football coaches let it hang for ten minutes. Sure, they’ll TALK about being good sports but when the clock runs out and it’s 51-0 they are right back to, “What the HELL do you have to smile about?”

[Tristan]

I think the Title is an error…

Geepers, can you provide an actual FIRST time when an Atheist has destroyed a Christians rights? Protip: Forcing Christianity on others, in any way, is not a right.

[Marley23]

@ITR_champion

Nevertheless, the First Amendment says what it says, regardless of how people interpret it.

It does. And judges have been interpreting those words for years because even though the law says what it says, applying it is often more complicated than that. I’m not interested in this hijack, so that’s all I’ll say on the subject. (I’d be happy to have Really Not All That Bright explain my error.)

[mlees]

@XT

You seriously think that the intention was for the Amendments to only apply at the Federal level, and that states could just ignore them? I realize that in practice this was done to the Second, bit you think that was the intent for all of them??

-XT

Yes. While I prefer the interpretation of the Seperation of Church and State to mean how it’s applied today, back when the Constitution was written, it applied to the Feds only. (Bolding below is mine.)

State religion

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833. As of 2010, Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, “… the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to “abridge the privileges or immunities” of U.S. citizens, or to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments.

[John_Mace]

The OP seems to be under the impression that Christians have a right hang a banner referencing “Heavenly Father” in a public school. Now, I can agree that under certain interpretations of the 1st amendment, he might be correct. However, he is not correect under the current interpretation. But if he has an argument that they do have such a right, he should make it, not just assert that such a right exists.

[FinnAgain]

I used to have lunch with Steve Engel back in Great Neck. Brilliant man, even in his old age. I was sorry to learn that he’d died a few years ago. I suppose it’s interesting that part of his legacy is to see people who want to force their religion on others claim that they’re being oppressed if they’re stopped.

[Acsenray]

Who’s Steve Engel?

[GEEPERS]

@FinnAgain

Oh great pantheon of Gods and Goddesses who watch over us.
Grant us each day the desire to do our best.
To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.
To be honest with ourselves as well as with others.
Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.
Teach us the value of true friendship.
Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

Nothing wrong with that, right, Geepers?

Wouldn’t bother me one bit. As a free thinking human, I would simply exercise my right not to agree with the first statement. I certainly don’t get in a tinsy if I hear a Muslim praying in public. The 1st amendment gives us the right to express our beliefs in public. You have the right to disagree. You don’t have the right to tear down my banner. A banner is not the same thing as forcing a student to practice Christianity.

Face it, basic belief in a deity is part of American culture and heritage. Our president will say “God bless America”. Are you going to claim he is being unconstitutional and wrong?

[Little_Nemo]

You guys aren’t giving GEEPERS the credit he deserves. The OP actually said one thing that was true.

@GEEPERS

They want freedom from religion.

Exactly.

[silenus]

@GEEPERS

Wouldn’t bother me one bit. As a free thinking human, I would simply exercise my right not to agree with the first statement. I certainly don’t get in a tinsy if I hear a Muslim praying in public. The 1st amendment gives us the right to express our beliefs in public. You have the right to disagree. You don’t have the right to tear down my banner. A banner is not the same thing as forcing a student to practice Christianity.

Face it, basic belief in a deity is part of American culture and heritage. Our president will say “God bless America”. Are you going to claim he is being unconstitutional and wrong?

1. That’s a public school, supported by taxes. I have every right to tear down that banner.

2. At one time, slavery was a basic belief of American culture. We grew out of it, just like we’ll eventually grow out of theism.