Liberals hate free-speech

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Bull****. This has been debated ad nauseum. The DOCTRINE (and it IS established Constitutional Doctrine, and scholars on all sides and from all political persuasions are in virtual unanimous agreement on this) of seperation of church and state is CRUCIAL to the founding principles of this country.

This tired old crap about "it doesn't say 'seperation of church and state' in the Constitution word-for-word" is pathetic. Used only by Amerikan Taliban types that would presume to turn this country into a bunch of christo-fascist zombies.

Here's the exact text:

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. . .

I've highlighted the pertinant part for the benefit of those for whom reading comprehension does not come easily. In other words - the government should stay out of the business of religion and religion should stay out of the business of government (and yes, I'm deliberately calling both of them "businesses").

[914GT]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Bull****. This has been debated ad nauseum. The DOCTRINE (and it IS established Constitutional Doctrine, and scholars on all sides and from all political persuasions are in virtual unanimous agreement on this) of seperation of church and state is CRUCIAL to the founding principles of this country.

This tired old crap about "it doesn't say 'seperation of church and state' in the Constitution word-for-word" is pathetic. Used only by Amerikan Taliban types that would presume to turn this country into a bunch of christo-fascist zombies.

Here's the exact text:

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. . .

I've highlighted the pertinant part for the benefit of those for whom reading comprehension does not come easily. In other words - the government should stay out of the business of religion and religion should stay out of the business of government (and yes, I'm deliberately calling both of them "businesses").

So who made the law preventing the valedictorian from speaking?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
In other words - the government should stay out of the business of religion and religion should stay out of the business of government (and yes, I'm deliberately calling both of them "businesses").

You would think that if we want any protection of our inalienable rights, we should by definition have a clause that recognizes Christianity for being the very foundation of all the freedoms we enjoy in America...It was the fear of government intrusion into religion (like the Church of England) that inspired the Founders writing the First Amendment, not the other way around...The fact is the further we move away from our Christian foundation of America, the more rights we lose, the more corrupt we get and the more depraved we have become.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Tobra
Separation of church and state is nowhere in The Constitution

Neither does it say one can own an AR-15...

[kang]

Originally posted by Tobra
Separation of church and state is nowhere in The Constitution Einstein...

Ever since the bill of rights was written, the supreme court has ruled that the first amendment means "separation of chuch and state." This has been upheld countless times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

[914GT]

Originally posted by widebody911
Neither does it say one can own an AR-15...

Doesn't say you can't either.

[kang]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
You would think that if we want any protection of our inalienable rights, we should by definition have a clause that recognizes Christianity for being the very foundation of all the freedoms we enjoy in America...

Um, Christianity was not the foundation of all our freedoms, nor was it the foundation of our laws or our constitution.

[914GT]

Originally posted by kang
Um, Christianity was not the foundation of all our freedoms, nor was it the foundation of our laws or our constitution.

I wonder whose 'God' it was that Jefferson was speaking of?

"Taken from the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Almighty God hath created the mind free…All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion…No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."

By the way ... this is one of the inscriptions in the Jefferson Memorial that the ACLU hasn't sandblasted off yet.

[nostatic]

"Taken from the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Almighty God hath created the mind free…All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion…No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."

I'll say it again. If she wanted to talk about Allah and was silenced, the loudest complainers here wouldn't have an issue. It ain't about freedom of speech or freedom of religion, it's about what *they* believe...

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by nostatic

I'll say it again. If she wanted to talk about Allah and was silenced, the loudest complainers here wouldn't have an issue. It ain't about freedom of speech or freedom of religion, it's about what *they* believe...

And the loudest defenders (here) have no problem with a teacher pushing their agenda in school. It ain't about freedom of speech or freedom of religion, it's about stickin it to the Xtains...

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
so a gal opening her valedictorian speech by thanking jesus christ is "a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"

No it isn't. The issue is whether the policy of the school, which is publicly funded, and has been delegated authority by local or state government can establish a policy prohibiting prosthletizing. This is well within their rights although it certainly could be appealed under the wording of the First Amendment if someone wanted to do this.

Does her speech represent a "law"? Of course not. But the outcome does challenge the authority of any law or policy rooted in law to the contrary. Fine and dandy. I'd say that up until the point the government prohibits people from exercising their religious preferences in ANY capacity it isn't an infringement on one's rights. Did they shut down her church or say she couldn't thank God or whatever? No. She just kept hitting the "J" button until she got shut off BECAUSE she wanted to make an issue out of it - not because of any real belief. Is this really "freedom of religion" or is it "freedom to make an issue of religion"?

She still may freely believe and practice whatever beliefs she wants - at church and in her home. Fine. Beyond that - in a government-funded setting it is inappropriate. So is any other religion - or lectures about atheism or agnosticism for what it's worth. . .

Originally posted by Mullhollandose
You would think that if we want any protection of our inalienable rights, we should by definition have a clause that recognizes Christianity for being the very foundation of all the freedoms we enjoy in America...It was the fear of government intrusion into religion (like the Church of England) that inspired the Founders writing the First Amendment, not the other way around...The fact is the further we move away from our Christian foundation of America, the more rights we lose, the more corrupt we get and the more depraved we have become.

Um. . . If you check your history, you'll find that most of the founding fathers were deists - not Christians.

[914GT]

Originally posted by nostatic
I'll say it again. If she wanted to talk about Allah and was silenced, the loudest complainers here wouldn't have an issue. It ain't about freedom of speech or freedom of religion, it's about what *they* believe...

Nope. You're wrong. If she wanted to bore people with allah, or whatever/whoever, then that's her right.

[914GT]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
and has been delegated authority by local or state government can establish a policy prohibiting prosthletizing

Then you undermined your own argument by quoting the first amendment - that the government can make no such law or 'policy'.

[kang]

Originally posted by 914GT
I wonder whose 'God' it was that Jefferson was speaking of?

Sure, Jefferson believed in your god. But he was the principle founder of the doctrine of separation of church and state, quoted here:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, CT.


And while he was president:

"I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States from meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.... But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and praying. That is, I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.... Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."

He had many other things to say on this subject:


"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper.


"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." Letter to Horatio G. Spafford.

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God." Letter to Thomas Law.


As one of the primary founding fathers, it is abundantly clear that Jefferson believed wholeheartedly in separation of church and state.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

They can't. The interpretation of that is that they cannot make a law PROHIBITING free exercise of religion. Did they do that through an anti-prothletizing policy? Nope. Was she PROHIBITED from practicing her religion? Nope. I don't recall seeing that the school shut down her church or whatever. And they DID let her get away with a couple of references/thank-yous here before the plug was pulled. This is not prohibiting her.

[914GT]

Originally posted by kang
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, CT.


And while he was president:

"I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States from meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.... But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and praying. That is, I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.... Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."

Your selected quotations continue to undermine your argument. The Government has no business making a law interfering with an individual's right to express their religious beliefs or speech.

[914GT]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
This is not prohibiting her.

Sure it is.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

And they don't. The day the government prohibits or starts regulating the activities within churches, synagogues or individual homes or events specifically designated or for the purpose of "expressing religious beliefs" is the day I'll stand alongside those crying "foul" here - but not before. Up until that point, there's no prohibitation.

Remember the standard is "prohibit" not "interfere with". Per the Constitution.

[kang]

Originally posted by 914GT
Your selected quotations continue to undermine your argument. The Government has no business making a law interfering with an individual's right to express their religious beliefs or speech.

And they didn’t make a law or interfere with her freedoms. What they did was support separation of church and state. The school, in this instance, is “the state,” being that it is a public school, funded and operated by the state.

Once again, it’s the context here that makes all the difference. She can say whatever she wants out of the context of the public school system. There are years and years of court cases that support what they did here. Time and time again, the courts have backed separation of church and state when it comes to public schools. This is not news. This has been going on for years and years, and keeping religion out of public schools is backed by the constitution and the courts.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by tobster1911
And the loudest defenders (here) have no problem with a teacher pushing their agenda in school. It ain't about freedom of speech or freedom of religion, it's about stickin it to the Xtains...

oh right...Christians are so put-upon in this country