Student Backs Teacher In Fight To Keep Bible On Desk

[jtyangel]

I wouldn't have any idea TNO and neither do you by the way. Who's to say he doesn't study it on his free period? As long as he's not "preaching the word" to the kids he is allowed to have a bible in his classroom.

So, there you go. Because we can't come up with a good reason why the teacher keeps the Bible visibly on his desk, we can reasonably assume that he is doing so because he wants to it on display.

Good thing you aren't an administrator there. You are wrong on this and make a decision based on wrong-headedness and you could get slapped with a hefty discrimination lawsuit. Just sayin'.

[Toastedturningtidelegs]

I wouldn't have any idea TNO and neither do you by the way. Who's to say he doesn't study it on his free period? As long as he's not "preaching the word" to the kids he is allowed to have a bible in his classroom.

So, there you go. Because we can't come up with a good reason why the teacher keeps the Bible visibly on his desk, we can reasonably assume that he is doing so because he wants to it on display.

He can have a bible visibly on his desk! As long as he is not "preaching the word"

[The Night Owl]

He can have a bible visibly on his desk! As long as he is not "preaching the word"

Religious displays in public schools are tantamount to state endorsement of religion.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

He can have a bible visibly on his desk! As long as he is not "preaching the word"

Religious displays in public schools are tantamount to state endorsement of religion.

You can't endorse atheism either.

[Toastedturningtidelegs]

He can have a bible visibly on his desk! As long as he is not "preaching the word"

Religious displays in public schools are tantamount to state endorsement of religion.

Try and enforce that! You would then have to forbid people wearing crucifixes and stars of david around their neck. How many times do atheists and secularists have to lose this battle before it becomes clear?

[The Night Owl]

You can't endorse atheism either.

Agreed. I wouldn't want teachers displaying atheist manifestos in the classroom any more than I want teachers displaying religious texts.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You can't endorse atheism either.

Agreed. I wouldn't want teachers displaying atheist manifestos in the classroom any more than I want teachers displaying religious texts.

Scientific naturalism is a philosophy. They shouldn't be allowed to push that either. But alas, those of your mentality have preverted no endorsement of religion to the absolute ethnic cleansing of all things religious in the public forum...and beyond.

And you misread non-establishment clause.

It clearly states CONGRESS shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion. That would be the national congress. The states were another issue.

Did you know the Massachusetts state constitution provided for the collecting of taxes for the building of churches and payment of ministers?

[The Night Owl]

Try and enforce that! You would then have to forbid people wearing crucifixes and stars of david around their neck. How many times do atheists and secularists have to lose this battle before it becomes clear?

I don't see anything wrong with a teachers wearing cross pendants as long as they're not purposefully wearing it on the outside of clothing they could easily and comfortably tuck it into.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Try and enforce that! You would then have to forbid people wearing crucifixes and stars of david around their neck. How many times do atheists and secularists have to lose this battle before it becomes clear?

I don't see anything wrong with a teachers wearing cross pendants as long as they're not purposefully wearing it on the outside of clothing they could easily and comfortably tuck it into.

You do realize, mein herr, that the constitution also protects religious expression.

[Chris_]

You can't endorse atheism either.

Agreed. I wouldn't want teachers displaying atheist manifestos in the classroom any more than I want teachers displaying religious texts.

Scientific naturalism is a philosophy. They shouldn't be allowed to push that either. But alas, those of your mentality have preverted no endorsement of religion to the absolute ethnic cleansing of all things religious in the public forum...and beyond.

And you misread non-establishment clause.

It clearly states CONGRESS shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion. That would be the national congress. The states were another issue.

Did you know the Massachusetts state constitution provided for the collecting of taxes for the building of churches and payment of ministers?

I don't know if I can completely agree with the section that I bolded. Remember, many liberals seem to think that NOT bowing down to islam is exclusionary and narrow-minded.

[The Night Owl]

Scientific naturalism is a philosophy. They shouldn't be allowed to push that either. But alas, those of your mentality have preverted no endorsement of religion to the absolute ethnic cleansing of all things religious in the public forum...and beyond.

Nonsense. I have nothing against schools teaching students about various religions. What I'm against are schools promoting religion.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You can't endorse atheism either.

Agreed. I wouldn't want teachers displaying atheist manifestos in the classroom any more than I want teachers displaying religious texts.

Scientific naturalism is a philosophy. They shouldn't be allowed to push that either. But alas, those of your mentality have preverted no endorsement of religion to the absolute ethnic cleansing of all things religious in the public forum...and beyond.

And you misread non-establishment clause.

It clearly states CONGRESS shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion. That would be the national congress. The states were another issue.

Did you know the Massachusetts state constitution provided for the collecting of taxes for the building of churches and payment of ministers?

I don't know if I can completely agree with the section that I bolded. Remember, many liberals seem to think that NOT bowing down to islam is exclusionary and narrow-minded.

Ah-h-h...but my good sir; partaking of Ramadan prayers, learning to pray in the Muslim fashion and writing essays on the favorable passages of the Koran isn't religion...it's multi-culturalism designed to move you off of your racist, xenophobic American jongoism.  

[The Night Owl]

You do realize, mein herr, that the constitution also protects religious expression.

Religious displays on publicly owned property violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Sorry about that.

[Chris_]

Ah-h-h...but my good sir; partaking of Ramadan prayers, learning to pray in the Muslim fashion and writing essays on the favorable passages of the Koran isn't religion...it's multi-culturalism designed to move you off of your racist, xenophobic American jongoism. 

Okay. I understand now. Wow! If it wasn't for all of us Christians the world sure would be a much more peaceful and harmonious place.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Scientific naturalism is a philosophy. They shouldn't be allowed to push that either. But alas, those of your mentality have preverted no endorsement of religion to the absolute ethnic cleansing of all things religious in the public forum...and beyond.

Nonsense. I have nothing against schools teaching students about various religions. What I'm against are schools promoting religion.

But the draconian purges of the ACLU, PftAW etc do not rest there. ALL expressions are being purged. You by your own admission would bring government sanction on any teacher deemed to have failed t wear their cross or mogen David on the inside of their clothes.

A small piece of gold...
in a particular shape...
deemed to have been deliberately worn in view of the student body...

What shall you do? Confiscate the offending piece of gold in a particular shape? Fine them? Fire them? Revoke their teaching license?

What dastardly harm they must be inflicting on such tender young minds.

Religious displays on publicly owned property violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Sorry about that.

Yes, another grand liberal MISinterpretation. Please re-read my point about the Massachusetts state constitution and get back to me (unless it troubles you too much to admit its existence).

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

BTW - If you're threatened by crosses on federal property as a violation of the non-establishment clause I'm guessing national military cemeteries must send you over the brink.

Better grab a hammer and get busy...there's a lot of them. It's be  a shame if all them soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines died to have their freedom FROM religion violated by plopping big ol' headstones with crosses and stars down on top of them.

[Red October]

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Congress shall pass no law.  Nor prohibit free excercise thereof.  This is not difficult phrasing for anyone to wrap their brains around.  How can a reasonable person say some teacher in Birdshit, Pennsylvania putting a Bible on his desk equates to CONGRESS PASSING A LAW (<-- what the Constitution says not to do) requiring everyone to practice a state religion?  And how can a reasonable person favor penalizing a person for having a Bible on his desk (<-- also what the Constitution says not to do)?  This endorsement line is a crock of shit.  The Constitution says nothing of endorsement.  It says Congress shall pass no law.  Period.  

[franksolich]

Thank you, RedOctober.

That is so basic, so simple, so fundamental, so elementary, I wonder why the anti-religious left doesn't understand it.

I mean, it doesn't take more than two brain-cells to grasp it.

[Red October]

Thank you, RedOctober.

That is so basic, so simple, so fundamental, so elementary, I wonder why the anti-religious left doesn't understand it.

I mean, it doesn't take more than two brain-cells to grasp it.

[Chris_]

Thank you, RedOctober.

That is so basic, so simple, so fundamental, so elementary, I wonder why the anti-religious left doesn't understand it.

I mean, it doesn't take more than two brain-cells to grasp it.

Today's liberals want it to mean what they, if writing it today, would mean.  It certainly isn't news, but this is the reason why they persist in petitioning "liberal" courts to interpret it that way.....

doc

[The Night Owl]

BTW - If you're threatened by crosses on federal property as a violation of the non-establishment clause I'm guessing national military cemeteries must send you over the brink.

Better grab a hammer and get busy...there's a lot of them. It's be  a shame if all them soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines died to have their freedom FROM religion violated by plopping big ol' headstones with crosses and stars down on top of them.

Religious tombstones on public lands don't violate the Establishment Clause because the design of a tombstone or what goes on it is up to the service members buried there or their loved ones and does not constitute government endorsement of a particular religion or of religion in general.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

BTW - If you're threatened by crosses on federal property as a violation of the non-establishment clause I'm guessing national military cemeteries must send you over the brink.

Better grab a hammer and get busy...there's a lot of them. It's be  a shame if all them soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines died to have their freedom FROM religion violated by plopping big ol' headstones with crosses and stars down on top of them.

Religious tombstones on public lands don't violate the Establishment Clause because the design of a tombstone or what goes on it is up to the service members buried there or their loved ones and does not constitute government endorsement of a particular religion or of religion in general.

And how do you reconcile that with your prohibitions against a cross around the neck?

And why do you continue to ignore my point about the Massachusetts state constitution?

[DixieBelle]

Umm, a citizen possessing a bible at his place of employment (even if it's a govt entity) doesn't equal government establishment of a religion either.

Snuggles, I don't think TNO has ever taken a civics class.

Edited to add: This should twirl TNO's skirt - I recently attended a school field trip. We went here - http://www.historicstjohnschurch.org/ This is what we saw - http://www.historicstjohnschurch.org/hist_main.htm We *GASP* bowed our heads to pray at the beginning too because the audience participates as "delegates". Every head was bowed, every eye closed. Even the two Muslim mothers who were also chaperones. Chew on that one for a while.....

[MrsSmith]

It's enough to make one think that atheists, agnostics, secular humanists and liberals all have one thing in common...their belief systems are so weak that the mere sight of a Bible or the printed Ten Commandments is enough to overwhelm them with fear and doubt.  Seriously, after years and years of the secular brainwashing forced under US law, the mere sight of a Bible is horrifying?   

[DixieBelle]

It's enough to make one think that atheists, agnostics, secular humanists and liberals all have one thing in common...their belief systems are so weak that the mere sight of a Bible or the printed Ten Commandments is enough to overwhelm them with fear and doubt.  Seriously, after years and years of the secular brainwashing forced under US law, the mere sight of a Bible is horrifying?  

Teh Jesus!! It burns!!!