Separation of Church and State

[calfoxwc]

4 minutes ago, FairHooker11 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair

as an activist she had a lot of so called "objections" to Christianity as it fell into the mainstream American thought.

and as such has a "laundry list" of those objections. 

Interesting too is the cover that she gets by the media in some cases looking at any google search - to find that she is completely innocent

and hardly lifted a finger against Christianity  LOL

It says ALOT to the times in which we live - that history is being rewritten and presented to us as fact by the f(r)iends at google, youtube FB etc 

EVERYONE remembers Madelyn Murray Ohair and her exploits of HATE towards our 1st ammendment rights 

I figure it's like the guy arrested who wanted to assassinate Kavanaugh. He said he wanted to have "a purpose".

so many social media groupies love the chance to be famous, if for only a short few moments.

just very strange.

[calfoxwc]

On 7/2/2022 at 11:03 AM, MLD Woody said:

SCOTUS ruling to allow a coach to make a big spectacle or a prayer at the 50 Yard line, clearly having implications on those that join in and those that don't 

that's a stupid thing to say. "implications" in your own corrupt mind. You afraid that some students will be influenced by the hc?

too bad, STFU. That is a stupid take, like most all ? of your takes. Deny a hc the right to be a Christian and pray on the field, because you don't like the 50 yard line, and you don't like Christians, and you want to pretend that anyone employed by the public should never let anyone know they are Christians.

how stupid. Strange - you don't like implications, but you implicate yourself with nearly every post - as being guilty of being a stupid woodpecker.

[FairHooker11]

5 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

I figure it's like the guy arrested who wanted to assassinate Kavanaugh. He said he wanted to have "a purpose".

so many social media groupies love the chance to be famous, if for only a short few moments.

just very strange.

that guy is a sociopath - and the group of losers who character assassinated Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings

were and still are psychopaths...  

[FairHooker11]

3 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

that's a stupid thing to say. "implications" in your own corrupt mind. You afraid that some students will be influenced by the hc?

too bad, STFU. That is a stupid take, like most all ? of your takes. Deny a hc the right to be a Christian and pray on the field, because you don't like the 50 yard line, and you don't like Christians, and you want to pretend that anyone employed by the public should never let anyone know they are Christians.

how stupid. Strange - you don't like implications, but you implicate yourself with nearly every post - as being guilty of being a stupid woodpecker.

 

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

And I'm sure some/many Christians will agree with you, as long as those Muslims, etc. do it "over there". I still believe you're being dense on purpose which is me giving you the benefit of the doubt here. It's the more positive view of you...

In this town where the coach now has a huge group praying at the 50, that's where I want to see any resident Muslims, Satanists, etc push for their right to now pray on the 50 too. Whatever pisses off the Christians the most. Or something similar not in Dearborn where these opposing beliefs can be nicely segregated, but in towns full of the evangelicals (or less) that support this ruling. 

 

And fyi, the goal here isn't to just go out of the way to piss devout Christians off. Though I'm sure you'll completely ignore this part and say it is. The point is to bring hypocrisy to the light and ultimately, hopefully, undo this latest SCOTUS decision that just moves us closer to a theocracy. So if these groups want to remove church and state then they'll deal with all of the consequences. Ideally none of this matters, we keep religion separate, and these groups can practice whatever they want in their own groups. But instead they have to just force it into everyone else's faces. 

(cal) it is about some kind of hate war the pecker is fixated on - a take of his, since i can remember being here (2009)

hatred on Christian faith and those who practice it. 

funny that another thread asks about the possibility of some kind of unity across cultures here in America ...

Im all for it - but you cant start a dialogue with someone who is waiting for his objectors to "die off"

just wait til he gets his head straight i guess?

 

[Westside Steve]

48 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

I figure it's like the guy arrested who wanted to assassinate Kavanaugh. He said he wanted to have "a purpose".

so many social media groupies love the chance to be famous, if for only a short few moments.

just very strange.

Remember I'm an Entertainer and theater major so I completely understand the Allure of Fame.

So many famous people are surrounded by sycophants that they never bother to question what it is they are representing because of the Adoration they get from their Inner Circle.

It's never seemed like Joe Biden was a lunatic left Winger until he got into the White House and now I think he is growing into that role because of the lunatics that Praise Him.

I would imagine if someone got a foothold as a public figure because of some strange or controversial idea or another it would be pretty easy to expand on those positions to increase one's media footprint.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

On 7/3/2022 at 4:13 PM, Westside Steve said:

Oh horseshit. You haven't heard me say an ill word about Muslims in as long as we've been on here. That's a fake narrative that you seem to want to push. And I have no problem with some school prayer for this coach or whoever you're mad about. 

The problem is and it's getting worse and worse every week it seems, is that people are falling all over themselves to claim that they've been offended and need to be protected by something or other. People love attention. And a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or an agnostic or an atheist or a Buddhist or a druid who claims they've been offended by somebody freely practicing his religion should just shut up. Everybody can find something to be offended about semicolon live it or live with it.

Also whoever the butt plug was that convinced the Supreme Court that a silent prayer in school was akin to establishing a theocracy has really lost touch with reality.

WSS

Sigh... Christ. I never said you said anything negative about Muslims. If you want a sustained back and forth don't typical Steve it up and make things up. 

"Or whatever you're mad about"... Of course... It's the dismantling of the separation of Church and State. Regardless of the religion, I actually don't want to live in a theocracy. Crazy. 

Oh yes, it's the other side full of victims but nothing on your side, right? Look at so many of the threads posted here. The right is claiming victimhood constantly. The right bitched because an M&M wasn't sexy enough. Does the left have people claiming victimhood? Obviously. But the hypocrisy of the right calling this out and then turning around and playing victim isn't obvious.

It's a public school. And an authority figure in a public school. And it's on school property at a school event. It's a big group on the 50 Yard line. The coach at the center even did a media tour before going back at it. Everyone can believe whatever they want, but this situation, at a public school, is the establishment of a religion. 

Apparently it doesn't matter what the majority of people want, and voting won't matter, because a fringe minority has pushed their beliefs. So, if this isn't going to be overturned back to what the constitution actually says, then other groups might as well take advantage of it to piss off that original fring minority. 

[MLD Woody]

On 7/3/2022 at 2:42 PM, calfoxwc said:

 

 

On 7/3/2022 at 2:46 PM, calfoxwc said:

So, two questions for the notorious woodpecker:

1. Do you have..............an electric car.................or gas powered car.

2. Just what is it that they let you "engineer" ? toothpicks? popsickle sticks?

 

Try to learn to not over write someone's post when you want to respond. Not that hard. 

 

I used to think you were doing mental gymnastics to justify your cognitive dissonance. After reading through your last post though, I realize you might just be that stupid. You might be too stupid to realize your own hypocrisy. Of course, that gives you an out. So I'd hate to do that. 

 

A. Posting in caps doesn't make you any more correct. A public school is an extension of the government. The coach is an employee of that school. Going out into the center of the field and praying with a bunch of others isn't close to a separation of Church and State. I can only hope that school is overrun with every other religion wanting to get out there as well. I believe in keeping religion out of government. That doesn't seem like that controversial of a take, yet here we are. 

B.

C. This is where my opening statement comes from. It's clear the implication of the SCOTUS ruling but you want to weasel out on a technicality. You support the restriction of abortion for women. You support keeping weed illegal. In both instances you're supporting a large, controlling government. You don't actually give a shit about having a small government. You care about having a government do what you want. This is obvious. You have no real morals. At every turn beliefs like these, or your Christian beliefs for example, are thrown to the side when your political party tells you. 

D. Yet again you have no idea what you're talking abou. I don't "despise" god. Literally never said anything close to this (especially ironic because you end that section saying I'M the one that puts words in people's mouths...). I believe we can't really prive god is or isn't real, my bet would be god isn't real, and I especially doubt any personal God exists. Believe it or not, as always, someone can not agree with you on something and not directly believe the exact opposite.

E. Yes cal, I'm angry. But based on how you're responding it's clear you aren't angry at all. I've already covered the details around the prayer. It's clearly violating the separation of church and state. Just like the other ruling to fund religious schools. If this can't get corrected quickly, which it can't, I hope other groups take advantage of it. 

... Oh geez. Literally none of you "offend" me by being Christian. I was raised Catholic, I have Christian family, some of my closest friends are Christian, etc. Once again, for the millionth time... disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you're their polar opposite and their enemy. I don't care whether this was a Christian,Muslim, Jew, whatever. I'd have the same take. 

 

 

And if course, we're back to your adorable little attempt at a "gotcha". Really stupid shit. As much as I'd like to see you squirm still, and as much as Axe doesn't deserve an answer because he never admitted he was wrong (when even Steve realized it was wrong). Here ya go ... I own a gas powered car. Oh my God! I'm a hypocrite now! You got me!

With me being taller, with more SUV options now, and with me making more I'll probably go hybrid or EV with my next car. I'm keeping an eye on the Grand Cherokee 4xe. 

 

I'm also not putting any information about my job out here publicly. Too many of you have way too much time on your hands and would absolutely try to do something. All you need to know is I have a degree in engineering and I work within the manufacturing industry. 

 

 

I also realize I'm a fool for even engaging with you

[MLD Woody]

23 hours ago, FairHooker11 said:

 

 

Im all for it - but you cant start a dialogue with someone who is waiting for his objectors to "die off

 

This is the unfortunate reality of the situation. A group is driving this country backwards. A group led by older folks. These people aren't going to change their mind or take in new information at their age. The only silver lining is that these folks will be affecting our society for less time. 

This viewpoint came after years of interacting with and seeing the beliefs of those on this board. This only got worse over the last 5 years or so. There is no persuading this group. Hell, this group is the minority and can still get their way to affect the rest of the country. 

Hoping to persuade or out-vote or anything clearly isn't going to work. Or work much. There's a ticking clock on this group at least. 

Hate that take if you want. I don't care.

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

9 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

This is the unfortunate reality of the situation. A group is driving this country backwards. A group led by older folks. These people aren't going to change their mind or take in new information at their age. The only silver lining is that these folks will be affecting our society for less time. 

This viewpoint came after years of interacting with and seeing the beliefs of those on this board. This only got worse over the last 5 years or so. There is no persuading this group. Hell, this group is the minority and can still get their way to affect the rest of the country. 

Hoping to persuade or out-vote or anything clearly isn't going to work. Or work much. There's a ticking clock on this group at least. 

Hate that take if you want. I don't care.

 

Fortunately not all are pussies like you though.

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

17 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I also realize I'm a fool

Correct.

[Westside Steve]

4 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Sigh... Christ. I never said you said anything negative about Muslims. If you want a sustained back and forth don't typical Steve it up and make things up. 

"Or whatever you're mad about"... Of course... It's the dismantling of the separation of Church and State. Regardless of the religion, I actually don't want to live in a theocracy. Crazy. 

Oh yes, it's the other side full of victims but nothing on your side, right? Look at so many of the threads posted here. The right is claiming victimhood constantly. The right bitched because an M&M wasn't sexy enough. Does the left have people claiming victimhood? Obviously. But the hypocrisy of the right calling this out and then turning around and playing victim isn't obvious.

It's a public school. And an authority figure in a public school. And it's on school property at a school event. It's a big group on the 50 Yard line. The coach at the center even did a media tour before going back at it. Everyone can believe whatever they want, but this situation, at a public school, is the establishment of a religion. 

Apparently it doesn't matter what the majority of people want, and voting won't matter, because a fringe minority has pushed their beliefs. So, if this isn't going to be overturned back to what the constitution actually says, then other groups might as well take advantage of it to piss off that original fring minority. 

Horseshit. Whether the coach praise or they sold the call to prayer all across Dearborn or your Satanist buddies stick up their index fingers on each side of their head and howl like wolves or whatever the hell they do or you pour Ragu over your head to worship the FSM none of which are establishing a state religion you're just being stupid. And even stupider when you misrepresent the M&Ms Fiasco that was 100% because theire dunce of a CEO made a ridiculous speech about it FFS.

It was posted here but you didn't pay attention because that doesn't fit your equally ridiculous agenda. Which is constantly whining about the religious right.

And spare me the usual counterpoint "It's not constant! Sometimes I whine about Trump and climatechange!"

WSS

[VaporTrail]

As a resident atheist, I actually agree with the football coach and Maine religious school funding SCOTUS rulings.

Football coach: 

Prior to going to court, this coach said a prayer at the 50-yard line after every game. There was no evidence he coerced any students to join him, but he also didn't turn them away if they asked to join. Someone from another school praises him to his school's superintendent, which gets everyone worried that they're going to get a Constitutional lawsuit. School tells him he can no longer do it if there are any students around, and if he does do it, he cannot make any gestures that outwardly look like he's praying (e.g. - he cannot bow his head, clasp his hands) and he must stop if approached by any students.

The coach agrees not to lead prayer with students anymore and decides to pray silently at the 50-yard line. He does this the following week, and in a written communication, the school district acknowledges that he did not lead a prayer with students, but that it may still appear that he was praying. Which, in their interpretation, was a school endorsement of religion. The district then tells him he is no longer allowed to pray on the field, but it must be in private and not observable to the public. Coach draws his line in the sand and says that the prayer on the site of the game is what's important to him. He kneels alone, briefly for the next game, and then the school district places him on administrative leave and does not renew his contract when it expires. 

He sues on grounds of religious discrimination, and the 9th circuit court of appeals sides with the school district. Seven years later, it comes to SCOTUS and the 9th circuit's ruling is overturned on the grounds that Coach Kennedy's religious practice was suppressed by the school on the account that not doing so would be coercive to students.

My read: I'm with the school district telling them that he can't lead a team prayer. There are plenty of religious schools he can coach at if it's that important to him. He agreed to stop leading prayers with students. They lose me when they tell him when and where he cannot privately say a personal prayer on the field after the game. That's an outright infringement of personal liberties, imo. He made good faith efforts to compromise, and they still fired him for it. Sucks that the guy had to wait 7 years to be vindicated. 

On 7/2/2022 at 11:08 AM, MLD Woody said:

The Establishment Clause

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Majority's argument, and one I agree with, is that the 9th district can't use an intangible threat of coercion to justify actual prohibition of free exercise of religion.

[VaporTrail]

Maine religious schools:

In 2020, another case decided by SCOTUS was Espinoza vs Montana Dept. of Revenue. In this case, the court ruled that state vouchers for private schools were optional, but if the state did decide to offer them, they had to offer them to everyone. You could not exclude a school because it was religious. 

Carson vs Makin came about when a few families tried to use voucher programs on "secondary" schools but were denied by the 1st Circuit Court on the account of their secondary school choice being Christian schools. So going back to the establishment clause, denying the use of these funds for religious schools, while allowing them for non-sectarian, state schools is a form of religious discrimination.

On 7/2/2022 at 11:14 AM, MLD Woody said:

I hope some Muslims or Satanists can take advantage of this as it seems that's the only thing that works. 

Not that you're necessarily doing it, but I've seen way too many people saying that the conservative Christians on the court didn't think about that as a consequence. You might be surprised to find that a joint amicus brief in support of the claimants was filed on behalf of the Council of Islamic Schools of North America and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. The participation of these religions was taken into account in spite of all the people fearmongering that we're moving toward a Christian theocracy.

I'd personally not vote for a school voucher program because I'd rather those funds be used to directly improve quality of state schools. However, if a state does decide that they want a voucher program, then this ruling is how it should be upheld. No one is discriminated against. No religion, or lack thereof, is favored. 

[calfoxwc]

so many public schools are failing  - I love the voucher program.

There is an explosion of home schooling and charter/Christian schools because all the way up to the NEA, it's sold out to the democrat/progressive/socialist/pervert party.

Religion has every place in any gov employee's heart...or not. That doesn't mean a gov sponsored religion, despite woody's wailings. Personal religious freedom.

and, it's all about the brilliance of our Constitution/Bill of Rights. Christians/non-Christians - should look at the Constitution/Bill of Rights to make their judgements at the Supreme Court.

   Atheists like woody want decisions based on social engineering - which was roe on a federal level.

Gone.

And woodpecker - your smart mouth makes you look like a moron more and more.

[MLD Woody]

59 minutes ago, VaporTrail said:

As a resident atheist, I actually agree with the football coach and Maine religious school funding SCOTUS rulings.

Football coach: 

Prior to going to court, this coach said a prayer at the 50-yard line after every game. There was no evidence he coerced any students to join him, but he also didn't turn them away if they asked to join. Someone from another school praises him to his school's superintendent, which gets everyone worried that they're going to get a Constitutional lawsuit. School tells him he can no longer do it if there are any students around, and if he does do it, he cannot make any gestures that outwardly look like he's praying (e.g. - he cannot bow his head, clasp his hands) and he must stop if approached by any students.

The coach agrees not to lead prayer with students anymore and decides to pray silently at the 50-yard line. He does this the following week, and in a written communication, the school district acknowledges that he did not lead a prayer with students, but that it may still appear that he was praying. Which, in their interpretation, was a school endorsement of religion. The district then tells him he is no longer allowed to pray on the field, but it must be in private and not observable to the public. Coach draws his line in the sand and says that the prayer on the site of the game is what's important to him. He kneels alone, briefly for the next game, and then the school district places him on administrative leave and does not renew his contract when it expires. 

He sues on grounds of religious discrimination, and the 9th circuit court of appeals sides with the school district. Seven years later, it comes to SCOTUS and the 9th circuit's ruling is overturned on the grounds that Coach Kennedy's religious practice was suppressed by the school on the account that not doing so would be coercive to students.

My read: I'm with the school district telling them that he can't lead a team prayer. There are plenty of religious schools he can coach at if it's that important to him. He agreed to stop leading prayers with students. They lose me when they tell him when and where he cannot privately say a personal prayer on the field after the game. That's an outright infringement of personal liberties, imo. He made good faith efforts to compromise, and they still fired him for it. Sucks that the guy had to wait 7 years to be vindicated. 

The Majority's argument, and one I agree with, is that the 9th district can't use an intangible threat of coercion to justify actual prohibition of free exercise of religion.

 

Hey also went on a media tour and invited journalists and legislators to watch him pray before he sued. He wasn't fired but got a poor review and chose not to renew his contract. This was after the school tried to make concessions to let him still pray. 

I don't think he's being prohibited from his religious rights at all. As a state employee at state run event he just can't make a show of it and give the impression of coercion over students that don't have a choice in going to that school. He can pray on his own time, or like the school said, just somewhere that isn't the 50.

The coach going on a media tour and making it a big show before sueing kind of implies not the purest intentions, IMO.

 

I also think this opens the door for more religion creeping into government. Kim Davis coming back and rejecting gay marriage licenses, etc. 

[MLD Woody]

46 minutes ago, VaporTrail said:

Maine religious schools:

In 2020, another case decided by SCOTUS was Espinoza vs Montana Dept. of Revenue. In this case, the court ruled that state vouchers for private schools were optional, but if the state did decide to offer them, they had to offer them to everyone. You could not exclude a school because it was religious. 

Carson vs Makin came about when a few families tried to use voucher programs on "secondary" schools but were denied by the 1st Circuit Court on the account of their secondary school choice being Christian schools. So going back to the establishment clause, denying the use of these funds for religious schools, while allowing them for non-sectarian, state schools is a form of religious discrimination.

Not that you're necessarily doing it, but I've seen way too many people saying that the conservative Christians on the court didn't think about that as a consequence. You might be surprised to find that a joint amicus brief in support of the claimants was filed on behalf of the Council of Islamic Schools of North America and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. The participation of these religions was taken into account in spite of all the people fearmongering that we're moving toward a Christian theocracy.

I'd personally not vote for a school voucher program because I'd rather those funds be used to directly improve quality of state schools. However, if a state does decide that they want a voucher program, then this ruling is how it should be upheld. No one is discriminated against. No religion, or lack thereof, is favored. 

Oh course those other religious groups approve it. The law isn't so blatant as to be written for just Christian gain. The creep of Christianity into government is the creep of all religion, and it benefits all religion. At a high level though most of that power is with Christians, evangelicals, etc. The impact and influence will largely be from Christians. 

I'm sure the Christians on the court thought about it. I'm sure the leaders of these other religious groups thought about it. I'm referring to your standard heavy / fringe Christian conservative fighting for a lot of this stuff. They'll be the most affected when their taxes go to an Islamic or Satanist school. 

 

I'd also rather see money go to improving public schools than to a voucher system. But I disagree that it's religious discrimination to not fund religious schools with state money. They're separate for a reason. Or, at least, they're supposed to be. 

When do we get religious institutions to start paying taxes then? If we're just taking all of the teeth out of the establishment clause then fuck it, tax religious institutions. If there's no separation then that goes both ways. 

[MLD Woody]

35 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

so many public schools are failing  - I love the voucher program.

There is an explosion of home schooling and charter/Christian schools because all the way up to the NEA, it's sold out to the democrat/progressive/socialist/pervert party.

Religion has every place in any gov employee's heart...or not. That doesn't mean a gov sponsored religion, despite woody's wailings. Personal religious freedom.

and, it's all about the brilliance of our Constitution/Bill of Rights. Christians/non-Christians - should look at the Constitution/Bill of Rights to make their judgements at the Supreme Court.

   Atheists like woody want decisions based on social engineering - which was roe on a federal level.

Gone.

And woodpecker - your smart mouth makes you look like a moron more and more.

Are you even paying attention?

 

Not only did I tell you I'm technically not an atheist, but you liked the comment if the guy that said he was because you agree with him

 

 

Let's not get started on the anti expert, anti academic sentiment in this country. Another sad reality of our country...

[VaporTrail]

28 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Hey also went on a media tour and invited journalists and legislators to watch him pray before he sued. He wasn't fired but got a poor review and chose not to renew his contract. This was after the school tried to make concessions to let him still pray. 

The only part of this that is relevant is that the school tried to dictate how he could do a personal prayer. 

28 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I don't think he's being prohibited from his religious rights at all. As a state employee at state run event he just can't make a show of it and give the impression of coercion over students that don't have a choice in going to that school. He can pray on his own time, or like the school said, just somewhere that isn't the 50.

How is he giving the impression of coercion over students by kneeling for a few seconds at the 50-yard line? The district told him he couldn't even pause at the 50-yard line and bow his head for a few seconds because it might be interpreted by an assumed, coercible bystander as a prayer. They created a victim out of thin air to suppress this coach's right to say a silent prayer to himself on school property - the court found no evidence he coerced anyone. You really think the government should be able to dictate that?

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

4 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

 

Hey also went on a media tour and invited journalists and legislators to watch him pray before he sued. He wasn't fired but got a poor review and chose not to renew his contract. This was after the school tried to make concessions to let him still pray. 

I don't think he's being prohibited from his religious rights at all. As a state employee at state run event he just can't make a show of it and give the impression of coercion over students that don't have a choice in going to that school. He can pray on his own time, or like the school said, just somewhere that isn't the 50.

The coach going on a media tour and making it a big show before sueing kind of implies not the purest intentions, IMO.

 

I also think this opens the door for more religion creeping into government. Kim Davis coming back and rejecting gay marriage licenses, etc. 

[Canton Dawg]

14 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Sigh... Christ. I never said you said anything negative about Muslims. If you want a sustained back and forth don't typical Steve it up and make things up. 

"Or whatever you're mad about"... Of course... It's the dismantling of the separation of Church and State. Regardless of the religion, I actually don't want to live in a theocracy. Crazy. 

Oh yes, it's the other side full of victims but nothing on your side, right? Look at so many of the threads posted here. The right is claiming victimhood constantly. The right bitched because an M&M wasn't sexy enough. Does the left have people claiming victimhood? Obviously. But the hypocrisy of the right calling this out and then turning around and playing victim isn't obvious.

It's a public school. And an authority figure in a public school. And it's on school property at a school event. It's a big group on the 50 Yard line. The coach at the center even did a media tour before going back at it. Everyone can believe whatever they want, but this situation, at a public school, is the establishment of a religion. 

Apparently it doesn't matter what the majority of people want, and voting won't matter, because a fringe minority has pushed their beliefs. So, if this isn't going to be overturned back to what the constitution actually says, then other groups might as well take advantage of it to piss off that original fring minority. 

So, if you’re against a prayer on the 50 yard line I would imagine that you would be appalled at the fact that there’s classrooms being used as prayer rooms for Muslims?

 

http://stories.kera.org/changing-face-schools/2017/03/07/from-prayer-room-to-podcasts-liberty-high-shatters-stereotypes/

 

[jbluhm86]

On 7/3/2022 at 5:43 AM, Westside Steve said:

Two points. First of all I don't agree about Muslims. In a predominantly Muslim neighborhood and a predominantly Muslim School I think they do as they wish with no complaint for me.

"Predominantly [insert religion] neighborhood" is a modifier that changes the argument. I could just as easily say that Muslims or fringe religions like Satanism or Scientology holding prayers in the middle of small town Alabama or Indiana would cause a conniption fit amongst the predominantly Christian citizenry of those areas.

On 7/3/2022 at 5:43 AM, Westside Steve said:

Second, and here is where the adult thing comes into play, I'm not sure how you got the impression I was a big fan of equity, but sorry, I don't take satanists seriously and would not afford them the same privilege as I would Muslims or Christians or Jews. Kind of the same deal with the church of universal life that you mail a check and purchase yourself a Ministry from the classified ads of The Enquirer or Woody's Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Is that completely Fair to the handful of idiots that really worship Satan or the FSM? Maybe not. Time for them to realize that sometimes life is tough.

WSS

By being an adherent of a specific religion, logically, that means that the beliefs of other religions are already automatically not taken seriously, no? A Christian does not take the religious beliefs of a Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu or non-belief of atheists seriously because they are separate belief structures from the Christian religion, so that argument isn't really germaine to the core of the issue. The number of adherents to a specific religion is not a prerequisite to protection under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court, with this ruling, has opened the door for all religious practices to have the same public prayer privileges that the Christian coach has throughout the United States, regardless of what religion dominates the specific area in question. That is why I said it would be amused to see how the Christian majority areas of the country would respond to non-Christian religions holding prayers or other religious practices at the 50 yard lines of their football fields or similar areas 

 

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, jbluhm86 said:

"Predominantly [insert religion] neighborhood" is a modifier that changes the argument. I could just as easily say that Muslims or fringe religions like Satanism or Scientology holding prayers in the middle of small town Alabama or Indiana would cause a conniption fit amongst the predominantly Christian citizenry of those areas.

By being an adherent of a specific religion, logically, that means that the beliefs of other religions are already automatically not taken seriously, no? A Christian does not take the religious beliefs of a Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu or non-belief of atheists seriously because they are separate belief structures from the Christian religion, so that argument isn't really germaine to the core of the issue. The number of adherents to a specific religion is not a prerequisite to protection under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court, with this ruling, has opened the door for all religious practices to have the same public prayer privileges that the Christian coach has throughout the United States, regardless of what religion dominates the specific area in question. That is why I said it would be amused to see how the Christian majority areas of the country would respond to non-Christian religions holding prayers or other religious practices at the 50 yard lines of their football fields or similar areas 

 

Again I guess I don't know how you want me to respond. No Doubt anybody that actually believes even a little bit in whatever religion he follows has little or no regard for others religions nor should he. If someone actually believes something to be the true way then other ways are necessarily incorrect. I hear more serious disagreement among various flavors of christianity. Jehovah Witnesses Foursquare gospel Catholics Eastern Orthodox Mormons Protestants of all shapes and sizes everybody thinks everybody else is f***** up. And that's even before we get to Muslims or Jews or Buddhists. But regardless of anybody else's View as a non-Christian somebody praying on the 50-yard line doesn't bother me. And even if I did think that it constituted a sanctioning of a national religion I would scoff at that because of the aforementioned. Whatever Protestant sect this gentleman is is probably at odds with dozens of other Protestant sects.

But let's say somebody truly honestly deeply believes in any one of those then that belief should rightly supersede his belief or adherence to the United States Constitution or the rules and regulations of any secular country or municipality. Honestly if you believe in God and his plan for you that should automatically trump the Supreme Court. Or Stalin or Chairman Mao or Henry the 8th.

But I think you know me well enough to know that I believe that equity is largely a crock of shit especially when grandstanding adolescents demand that every fringe belief deserves equal treatment. That's why I don't hesitate to tell satanists or other goofball religions to sit down and shut up. But we are offended they may cry! And my responses tough shit Beelzebub. Hope I'm being clear.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

14 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

I also think this opens the door for more religion creeping into government. Kim Davis coming back and rejecting gay marriage licenses, etc. 

so, NOW woodpecker wants small government? eh?

https://www.nbcnews.com › news › us-news › same-sex-marraige-legal-nationwide-supreme-court-rules-n375551

Landmark: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide - NBC News

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide, declaring that refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the Constitution. The ...

[MLD Woody]

35 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

so, NOW woodpecker wants small government? eh?

https://www.nbcnews.com › news › us-news › same-sex-marraige-legal-nationwide-supreme-court-rules-n375551

Landmark: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide - NBC News

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide, declaring that refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the Constitution. The ...

No you fucking dumb piece of shit. I've never gone around this board yelling about small government or large government. I've never planted my flag on either. 

YOU have though. And YOU'VE been hypocritical frequently. Because YOU don't actually believe in anything. YOU flip constantly, run by feelings, and whatever your current party leader says. 

 

Not to mention you completely missed the damn point... as usual. 

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

4 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

No you fucking dumb piece of shit. I

 

[calfoxwc]

8 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

No you fucking dumb piece of shit. I've never gone around this board yelling about small government or large government. I've never planted my flag on either. 

YOU have though. And YOU'VE been hypocritical frequently. Because YOU don't actually believe in anything. YOU flip constantly, run by feelings, and whatever your current party leader says. 

 

Not to mention you completely missed the damn point... as usual. 

the only point you have made is with your beak.

I want small gov. But the gov DOES have a place in our nation.

You are the hypocrite - you LOVED the fed granting of gay "marriage".

but NOW, you whimper and whine and bitch because the Supreme Court

ruled against guns and roe.

So, you keep trying to sound smart, but it keeps saying "I say generalities and assume false hoods because I am a whimpy transwoodpecker."

So, "hypocrite" - go look in a mirror. and have a nice birdpoop day.

[FY56]

On 7/2/2022 at 11:08 AM, MLD Woody said:

The Establishment Clause

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

 

While I agree for the most part with the separation of church and state, there is nothing in the clause nor in the Constitution that supports the kind of separation we have all come to know.

This "establishment clause" is exactly that, and only that. ...to prohibit government from establishing an official religion as was in England. That is all.

The word "respecting" here means "with respect to". Look it up.

The "wall of separation" was coined by Thomas Jefferson responding in a letter to the Danbury Baptists who were in a dispute over an establishment of religion clause in the state constitution of Connecticut.

Jefferson said in short said that the Federal govt cannot be involved. 

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin (loc.gov)

The Supreme Court unfortunately cherry-picked a quote from a letter of a president to a congregation. 

 “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.”  This metaphor has been (mis)used by the Supreme Court in the Everson (1947) case and subsequent jurisprudence on issues of school prayer and Bible readings as to read that there should be no religion in the public square.  It also helped “incorporate” the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states contrary to the original intention of the founders.  Moreover, Jefferson explicitly recognized the Establishment Clause as a limitation on the national Congress not local schools or state governments.