The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: Chris_ on April 23, 2008, 07:00:17 AM
-
Judge Orders La. School District to Stop Bible Giveaways
NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge ordered a public school system to stop allowing in-school Bible giveaways, saying the practice violates the First Amendment separation of church and state.
"Distribution of Bibles is a religious activity without a secular purpose" and amounts to school board promotion of Christianity, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier ruled in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana against the Tangipahoa Parish School Board.
As requested by both sides, Barbier made a summary judgment based only on the written briefs — something judges may do only if the law is absolutely clear.
Defense attorney Christopher M. Moody said late Tuesday that the school board decided to appeal the ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal.
"We think our chances on appeal are very good," he said.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit for an anonymous family whose daughter said she felt pressured into taking a Bible even though she doesn't believe in God. The girl was called Jane Roe and her father John Roe out of fear of retaliation by schoolmates and neighbors, the ACLU has said.
Jane Roe was a fifth-grader at Loranger Middle School when The Gideons International visited on May 9, 2007. Principal Andre Pellerin notified fifth-grade teachers that the group would be on campus all day, giving away Bibles outside his office. His e-mail said, "Please stress to students that they DO NOT have to get a bible," according to Barbier.
Oh the horror. :ohnoes: A child actually touched a Bible. :whatever:
MORE (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352237,00.html)
-
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.
I don't think this judge has read any of the Bill of Rights. I don't see the word "separation". I don't find the word "church". I don't see the word "state" used.
I do see the words "of" and "and". If we were keeping score, the judge would still lose. He would be two for five.
-
The Bible is looked at by non-Christians as a great work of literature, and it is studied as such in many colleges and universities. Will the school prevail on freedom of speech? maybe.
That said, something tells me this school board would not allow the Koran to be distributed, yet they don't understand that the Bible could be just as offensive to others.
-
The Bible is looked at by non-Christians as a great work of literature, and it is studied as such in many colleges and universities. Will the school prevail on freedom of speech? maybe.
That said, something tells me this school board would not allow the Koran to be distributed, yet they don't understand that the Bible could be just as offensive to others.
Being offended by a Bible makes no sense. Being offended by the koran makes no sense. They are books, not tattoos. After being gifted with one, if you don't want it, throw it away or give it to someone who wants it.
I don't believe in Superman, but if someone wanted to pass out free copies of the comic books, I would think taking them to court to try to stop them would seem to be overkill, seeing how I personally place no importance on Superman.
If I thought about taking them to court, I would have to stop and ask myself what my goal really is. Would it be to stop myself and others like me from being "offended", or am I trying to deny others their right to accept a gift? Does Superman scare me that much?
-
The Bible is looked at by non-Christians as a great work of literature, and it is studied as such in many colleges and universities. Will the school prevail on freedom of speech? maybe.
That said, something tells me this school board would not allow the Koran to be distributed, yet they don't understand that the Bible could be just as offensive to others.
Being offended by a Bible makes no sense. Being offended by the koran makes no sense. They are books, not tattoos. After being gifted with one, if you don't want it, throw it away or give it to someone who wants it.
I don't believe in Superman, but if someone wanted to pass out free copies of the comic books, I would think taking them to court to try to stop them would seem to be overkill, seeing how I personally place no importance on Superman.
If I thought about taking them to court, I would have to stop and ask myself what my goal really is. Would it be to stop myself and others like me from being "offended", or am I trying to deny others their right to accept a gift? Does Superman scare me that much?
Which is what my first paragraph states.
My second paragraph simply states that the school board may not be so generous to an Islamic group who wished to come to the school to pass out the Koran, which ould call into question their motivation for allowing the Bibles to be distributed. If the ACLU was smart (I know, not a chance), they would have attempted to do so which would have locked in their case as a slam dunk if the school board balked at the request. Now their case is nothing more than sensationalism.
-
I thought non-believers called the Bible a "history book". What's the problem then? And the Gideons were behind this, not the school board. This is right up there with kicking Military recruiters off school grounds. Of course the ACLU is in the middle of it. *eyeroll*
-
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.
I don't think this judge has read any of the Bill of Rights. I don't see the word "separation". I don't find the word "church". I don't see the word "state" used.
I do see the words "of" and "and". If we were keeping score, the judge would still lose. He would be two for five.
To libs the Constitution is a "living document" which they are trying to kill. Their current version requires freedom from religion.
-
My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that Congress will not elevate a single religion above any other.
For a school that recieves money from Congress, to pass out Bibles but no other religious text, then that may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
It is still nothing I would get my panties in a wad over. If they where to begin using the bibles in their everyday teachings, I'd bring the hammer down, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
I must ask though. What would you guys say if the school was handing the Quran out?
-
My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that Congress will not elevate a single religion above any other.
For a school that receives money from Congress, to pass out Bibles but no other religious text, then that may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
It is still nothing I would get my panties in a wad over. If they where to begin using the bibles in their everyday teachings, I'd bring the hammer down, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
I must ask though. What would you guys say if the school was handing the Quran out?
I've already answered your question. Now I have a question or two.
How can congress interfere without prohibiting the free exercise thereof? That's in the first amendment too.
Should this not be a local issue? Constitutionally, our schools are none of congress' business.
Aha!, but you say, the schools accept federal money. That causes me to have another couple of questions.
Why do free and independent people send their money to Washington thereby enabling Washington to give back or withhold tax money as it sees fit? That is like giving your paycheck to your mother-in-law and having her dole back to you what she thinks you need and deciding why you need it.
Shouldn't the states be sending Washington what the states think Washington needs?
-
My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that Congress will not elevate a single religion above any other.
For a school that recieves money from Congress, to pass out Bibles but no other religious text, then that may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
It is still nothing I would get my panties in a wad over. If they where to begin using the bibles in their everyday teachings, I'd bring the hammer down, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
I must ask though. What would you guys say if the school was handing the Quran out?
The Koran is required reading in some schools. There have even been schools that required their students to dress appropriately, study the path to Mecca, and celebrate Ramadan. Islamic kids are allowed prayer time during the day, and allowed to perform religious acts such as washing feet because "it's diversity."
-
My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that Congress will not elevate a single religion above any other.
For a school that recieves money from Congress, to pass out Bibles but no other religious text, then that may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
It is still nothing I would get my panties in a wad over. If they where to begin using the bibles in their everyday teachings, I'd bring the hammer down, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
I must ask though. What would you guys say if the school was handing the Quran out?
The Koran is required reading in some schools. There have even been schools that required their students to dress appropriately, study the path to Mecca, and celebrate Ramadan. Islamic kids are allowed prayer time during the day, and allowed to perform religious acts such as washing feet because "it's diversity."
Where is this happening?
-
My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that Congress will not elevate a single religion above any other.
For a school that receives money from Congress, to pass out Bibles but no other religious text, then that may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
It is still nothing I would get my panties in a wad over. If they where to begin using the bibles in their everyday teachings, I'd bring the hammer down, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
I must ask though. What would you guys say if the school was handing the Quran out?
I've already answered your question. Now I have a question or two.
How can congress interfere without prohibiting the free exercise thereof? That's in the first amendment too.
Should this not be a local issue? Constitutionally, our schools are none of congress' business.
Aha!, but you say, the schools accept federal money. That causes me to have another couple of questions.
Why do free and independent people send their money to Washington thereby enabling Washington to give back or withhold tax money as it sees fit? That is like giving your paycheck to your mother-in-law and having her dole back to you what she thinks you need and deciding why you need it.
Shouldn't the states be sending Washington what the states think Washington needs?
The states did that by electing Congress who made these decisions about our money for us.
-
My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that Congress will not elevate a single religion above any other.
For a school that receives money from Congress, to pass out Bibles but no other religious text, then that may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
It is still nothing I would get my panties in a wad over. If they where to begin using the bibles in their everyday teachings, I'd bring the hammer down, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
I must ask though. What would you guys say if the school was handing the Quran out?
I've already answered your question. Now I have a question or two.
How can congress interfere without prohibiting the free exercise thereof? That's in the first amendment too.
Should this not be a local issue? Constitutionally, our schools are none of congress' business.
Aha!, but you say, the schools accept federal money. That causes me to have another couple of questions.
Why do free and independent people send their money to Washington thereby enabling Washington to give back or withhold tax money as it sees fit? That is like giving your paycheck to your mother-in-law and having her dole back to you what she thinks you need and deciding why you need it.
Shouldn't the states be sending Washington what the states think Washington needs?
So your saying the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in developing the infrastructure of our nation?
So are you saying this should be something that comes from state taxes then? Or should we expect the money to come from local drives and the goodness of peoples hearts?
If it's option number 1, your still going to end up giving your money to the "nanny-state" and if it's option 2, get ready for this country to start looking like Kenya.
And I know where beginning to diverge from the topic of religion, so I apologize for helping it down this road.
-
My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that Congress will not elevate a single religion above any other.
For a school that recieves money from Congress, to pass out Bibles but no other religious text, then that may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
It is still nothing I would get my panties in a wad over. If they where to begin using the bibles in their everyday teachings, I'd bring the hammer down, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
I must ask though. What would you guys say if the school was handing the Quran out?
The Koran is required reading in some schools. There have even been schools that required their students to dress appropriately, study the path to Mecca, and celebrate Ramadan. Islamic kids are allowed prayer time during the day, and allowed to perform religious acts such as washing feet because "it's diversity."
Where is this happening?
I'd give you the address of my son's school but I value our privacy. :-)
They closed the library off to all students so the Muslims would have a place to pray/fast during Ramadan. They even handed out prayer mats.
-
My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that Congress will not elevate a single religion above any other.
For a school that receives money from Congress, to pass out Bibles but no other religious text, then that may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
It is still nothing I would get my panties in a wad over. If they where to begin using the bibles in their everyday teachings, I'd bring the hammer down, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
I must ask though. What would you guys say if the school was handing the Quran out?
I've already answered your question. Now I have a question or two.
How can congress interfere without prohibiting the free exercise thereof? That's in the first amendment too.
Should this not be a local issue? Constitutionally, our schools are none of congress' business.
Aha!, but you say, the schools accept federal money. That causes me to have another couple of questions.
Why do free and independent people send their money to Washington thereby enabling Washington to give back or withhold tax money as it sees fit? That is like giving your paycheck to your mother-in-law and having her dole back to you what she thinks you need and deciding why you need it.
Shouldn't the states be sending Washington what the states think Washington needs?
So your saying the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in developing the infrastructure of our nation?
So are you saying this should be something that comes from state taxes then? Or should we expect the money to come from local drives and the goodness of peoples hearts?
If it's option number 1, your still going to end up giving your money to the "nanny-state" and if it's option 2, get ready for this country to start looking like Kenya.
And I know where beginning to diverge from the topic of religion, so I apologize for helping it down this road.
I'll bite. I would abolish the dept. of education altogether. We rely too heavily on the federal govt to set the standards for educating our children. Put that right back into the hands of the people at the local level. The authority we have at the local/state level is overseen by the federal govt and liberal interests have infected the process. I think suggesting we dismantle our infrastructure is a bit much and not the point that was being made. Minimum standards across the nation are fine. We must provide consistent education. But I'm a firm believer in state's rights and limited federal power so I don't think the system works as it currently stands. Wait until you have a kid in public school.
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
-
^as was the case in the OP. It was the Gideons who were passing out bibles.
The Gideons International visited on May 9, 2007. Principal Andre Pellerin notified fifth-grade teachers that the group would be on campus all day, giving away Bibles outside his office. His e-mail said, "Please stress to students that they DO NOT have to get a bible," according to Barbier.
-
The Koran is required reading in some schools.
So? Reading a religious text is not necessarily a form of worship.
There have even been schools that required their students to dress appropriately, study the path to Mecca, and celebrate Ramadan.
I would have to know the specifics of what you describe as students being required to "celebrate" Ramadan before I can comment about it.
Students in public schools should not be required to celebrate religious holidays or festivals, but I have nothing against students learning about how people around the world celebrate religious holidays and festivals.
Islamic kids are allowed prayer time during the day, and allowed to perform religious acts such as washing feet because "it's diversity."
So?
-
^It's elevating one religion over another.
I guess since you don't have children in public school, you aren't aware of these things. All references to Christianity have been removed. I am telling you this as a first hand observer. Islamic students are given accomodations that students of other faiths are not given. There are many examples of this - just google it.
-
So your saying the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in developing the infrastructure of our nation?
So are you saying this should be something that comes from state taxes then? Or should we expect the money to come from local drives and the goodness of peoples hearts?
If it's option number 1, your still going to end up giving your money to the "nanny-state" and if it's option 2, get ready for this country to start looking like Kenya.
And I know where beginning to diverge from the topic of religion, so I apologize for helping it down this road.
If by "infrastructure," you mean common defense and interstate highways, railways, etc., yes. If you mean education, no. Millions of families choose private schools. I do for my children. This means I'm paying federal, state, and local taxes to support public schools, which I am not benefitting from at all, on top of paying tuition to the school.
To get into the problems with a national public school system would require a whole other thread. I'll limit it here to my usual statment: public schools suck.
-
If by "infrastructure," you mean common defense and interstate highways, railways, etc., yes. If you mean education, no. Millions of families choose private schools. I do for my children. This means I'm paying federal, state, and local taxes to support public schools, which I am not benefitting from at all, on top of paying tuition to the school.
The nation benefits from having a well educated populace.
The best way to reduce the cost of education is to greatly reduce or eliminate sports programs. Schools waste an incredible amount of money on sports programs which have no real benefit except for the close to zero percentage of students who go on to play sports professionally.
-
The nation benefits from having a well educated populace.
The best way to reduce the cost of education is to greatly reduce or eliminate sports programs. Schools waste an incredible amount of money on sports programs which have no real benefit except for the close to zero percentage of students who go on to play sports professionally.
Agreed. And the government is the LAST thing we need to achieve that. Since education has gone more and more federal, SAT scores have plummetted. The answer is to get the feds out of education.
-
Yes, to liberals, sports programs are the downfall of public schools. Sports allow individuals to achieve based on their individual ability. Liberals can't have that. Individualism is enemy #1 of liberalism. No one can be exceptional in Liberal Land.
School sports work to bring a community together, which is bad news for liberals. Local pride in communities and good natured competition with other communities detracts from the notion of one-world Liberal Land where everyone is a carbon copy of everyone else.
-
Agreed. And the government is the LAST thing we need to achieve that. Since education has gone more and more federal, SAT scores have plummetted. The answer is to get the feds out of education.
At the risk of having a ghost excoriate me for knowing nothing of his work, I think that plummeting SAT scores are mostly the result of the societal transition toward tribalism. Read the Global Village entry at...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan
-
School sports work to bring a community together, which is bad news for liberals. Local pride in communities and good natured competition with other communities detracts from the notion of one-world Liberal Land where everyone is a carbon copy of everyone else.
The problem is not the sports programs, but the amount of money spent on them.
-
School sports work to bring a community together, which is bad news for liberals. Local pride in communities and good natured competition with other communities detracts from the notion of one-world Liberal Land where everyone is a carbon copy of everyone else.
The problem is not the sports programs, but the amount of money spent on them.
Never assume I'm talking to you.
-
Never assume I'm talking to you.
I'm well aware of the fact that you talk at people, not to them. Anyway, I'll now let you get back to endlessly expounding on the idea that liberals are bad people.
-
I think this place is haunted! I keep seeing posts but no one is there.
Maybe it is the ghost of Madalyn Murray O'Hair trying to warn other liberals that hell really does exist!
-
The problem is not the sports programs, but the amount of money spent on them.
How about the money that they generate? These Texas Class 4A and 5A football coaches aren't getting paid what they do because they look good in the coaches uniform: http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/coaching_salaries.pdf
-
I think this place is haunted! I keep seeing posts but no one is there.
Maybe it is the ghost of Madalyn Murray O'Hair trying to warn other liberals that hell really does exist!
Heh... I guess you're the #5 who keeps appearing and disappearing.
-
I think this place is haunted! I keep seeing posts but no one is there.
Maybe it is the ghost of Madalyn Murray O'Hair trying to warn other liberals that hell really does exist!
Heh... I guess you're the #5 who keeps appearing and disappearing.
Never ever assume I am talking to you.
-
Since when did schools spend too much money on sports? Proof TNO?
I know some school districts that rely on the PTA to provide equipment and many programs have been cut because of the ever increasing need to meet the wrong-headed standards of NCLB.
Again, this is another thread topic entirely and ya'll are welcome to start a new one on the state of public education. I think it would be a good debate.
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
-
If by "infrastructure," you mean common defense and interstate highways, railways, etc., yes. If you mean education, no. Millions of families choose private schools. I do for my children. This means I'm paying federal, state, and local taxes to support public schools, which I am not benefitting from at all, on top of paying tuition to the school.
The nation benefits from having a well educated populace.
The best way to reduce the cost of education is to greatly reduce or eliminate sports programs. Schools waste an incredible amount of money on sports programs which have no real benefit except for the close to zero percentage of students who go on to play sports professionally.
You obviously haven't the slightest idea what it means to participate in those sports. The benefits are huge.
-
Agreed. And the government is the LAST thing we need to achieve that. Since education has gone more and more federal, SAT scores have plummetted. The answer is to get the feds out of education.
At the risk of having a ghost excoriate me for knowing nothing of his work, I think that plummeting SAT scores are mostly the result of the societal transition toward tribalism. Read the Global Village entry at...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan
"plummeting SAT scores"??? Where did you get that one? Wiki??? :lmao:
-
IMO there is NO First Amendment separation of church and state.
-
My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that Congress will not elevate a single religion above any other.
For a school that receives money from Congress, to pass out Bibles but no other religious text, then that may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
It is still nothing I would get my panties in a wad over. If they where to begin using the bibles in their everyday teachings, I'd bring the hammer down, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
I must ask though. What would you guys say if the school was handing the Quran out?
I've already answered your question. Now I have a question or two.
How can congress interfere without prohibiting the free exercise thereof? That's in the first amendment too.
Should this not be a local issue? Constitutionally, our schools are none of congress' business.
Aha!, but you say, the schools accept federal money. That causes me to have another couple of questions.
Why do free and independent people send their money to Washington thereby enabling Washington to give back or withhold tax money as it sees fit? That is like giving your paycheck to your mother-in-law and having her dole back to you what she thinks you need and deciding why you need it.
Shouldn't the states be sending Washington what the states think Washington needs?
I've been saying just that sort of thing for years.
-
My interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that Congress will not elevate a single religion above any other.
For a school that recieves money from Congress, to pass out Bibles but no other religious text, then that may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
It is still nothing I would get my panties in a wad over. If they where to begin using the bibles in their everyday teachings, I'd bring the hammer down, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this.
I must ask though. What would you guys say if the school was handing the Quran out?
The Koran is required reading in some schools. There have even been schools that required their students to dress appropriately, study the path to Mecca, and celebrate Ramadan. Islamic kids are allowed prayer time during the day, and allowed to perform religious acts such as washing feet because "it's diversity."
Where is this happening?
California.
-
I'm going to start a new thread in General Discussion on education.
-
Never assume I'm talking to you.
I'm well aware of the fact that you talk at people, not to them. Anyway, I'll now let you get back to endlessly expounding on the idea that liberals are bad people.
*pats TNO on the head*
You still don't get it do you. Liberals do bad/stupid things, but that doesn't necessarily make them bad/stupid people.
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
Would you agree with them handing out abortion pamphlets?
I'm not trying to draw a correlation between religion and abortion, I'm just saying that in "controversial" matters, people of authority shouldn't be getting themselves into those situations.
It can easily be seen as an abuse of position. It's nothing less then a Squadron/Battalion Commander handing out Vote for Obama buttons to their troops. It's not something your supposed to do.
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
Would you agree with them handing out abortion pamphlets?
I'm not trying to draw a correlation between religion and abortion, I'm just saying that in "controversial" matters, people of authority shouldn't be getting themselves into those situations.
It can easily be seen as an abuse of position. It's nothing less then a Squadron/Battalion Commander handing out Vote for Obama buttons to their troops. It's not something your supposed to do.
Abortion pamphlets in a middle school? Poor analogy.
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
Would you agree with them handing out abortion pamphlets?
I'm not trying to draw a correlation between religion and abortion, I'm just saying that in "controversial" matters, people of authority shouldn't be getting themselves into those situations.
It can easily be seen as an abuse of position. It's nothing less then a Squadron/Battalion Commander handing out Vote for Obama buttons to their troops. It's not something your supposed to do.
In the military it is strictly prohibited a I recall. At least it was when I was in eons ago.
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
Would you agree with them handing out abortion pamphlets?
I'm not trying to draw a correlation between religion and abortion, I'm just saying that in "controversial" matters, people of authority shouldn't be getting themselves into those situations.
It can easily be seen as an abuse of position. It's nothing less then a Squadron/Battalion Commander handing out Vote for Obama buttons to their troops. It's not something your supposed to do.
Abortion pamphlets in a middle school? Poor analogy.
So do you have anything to say against the message, or are you just going to attack it's format?
If you think it's ok for a Public Official to take a stance in a controversial topic like this (and I don't care what your belief is, in today's world it is a controversial topic), then you have no right to ever complain when some other public official does something that you do not like.
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
Would you agree with them handing out abortion pamphlets?
I'm not trying to draw a correlation between religion and abortion, I'm just saying that in "controversial" matters, people of authority shouldn't be getting themselves into those situations.
It can easily be seen as an abuse of position. It's nothing less then a Squadron/Battalion Commander handing out Vote for Obama buttons to their troops. It's not something your supposed to do.
Abortion pamphlets in a middle school? Poor analogy.
So do you have anything to say against the message, or are you just going to attack it's format?
If you think it's ok for a Public Official to take a stance in a controversial topic like this (and I don't care what your belief is, in today's world it is a controversial topic), then you have no right to ever complain when some other public official does something that you do not like.
Um, there was no attack. Like I said, poor analogy.
You think public officials should not be allowed to take a stand/have an opinion? Does having an opinion automatically make them unethical? Does permitting religion equal endorsement?
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
Would you agree with them handing out abortion pamphlets?
I'm not trying to draw a correlation between religion and abortion, I'm just saying that in "controversial" matters, people of authority shouldn't be getting themselves into those situations.
It can easily be seen as an abuse of position. It's nothing less then a Squadron/Battalion Commander handing out Vote for Obama buttons to their troops. It's not something your supposed to do.
Abortion pamphlets in a middle school? Poor analogy.
So do you have anything to say against the message, or are you just going to attack it's format?
If you think it's ok for a Public Official to take a stance in a controversial topic like this (and I don't care what your belief is, in today's world it is a controversial topic), then you have no right to ever complain when some other public official does something that you do not like.
Um, there was no attack. Like I said, poor analogy.
You think public officials should not be allowed to take a stand/have an opinion? Does having an opinion automatically make them unethical? Does permitting religion equal endorsement?
Not at all. They have the rights to those opinions just like the rest of us. They just shouldn't be voicing those opinions to the public, because their position gives them the ability to influence others.
It's a price one has to pay to hold the authority that they do, IMO.
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
Would you agree with them handing out abortion pamphlets?
I'm not trying to draw a correlation between religion and abortion, I'm just saying that in "controversial" matters, people of authority shouldn't be getting themselves into those situations.
It can easily be seen as an abuse of position. It's nothing less then a Squadron/Battalion Commander handing out Vote for Obama buttons to their troops. It's not something your supposed to do.
Abortion pamphlets in a middle school? Poor analogy.
So do you have anything to say against the message, or are you just going to attack it's format?
If you think it's ok for a Public Official to take a stance in a controversial topic like this (and I don't care what your belief is, in today's world it is a controversial topic), then you have no right to ever complain when some other public official does something that you do not like.
Um, there was no attack. Like I said, poor analogy.
You think public officials should not be allowed to take a stand/have an opinion? Does having an opinion automatically make them unethical? Does permitting religion equal endorsement?
Not at all. They have the rights to those opinions just like the rest of us. They just shouldn't be voicing those opinions to the public, because their position gives them the ability to influence others.
It's a price one has to pay to hold the authority that they do, IMO.
Ok, is there such a thing as a public official who does not voice their opinions and influence others?
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
Would you agree with them handing out abortion pamphlets?
I'm not trying to draw a correlation between religion and abortion, I'm just saying that in "controversial" matters, people of authority shouldn't be getting themselves into those situations.
It can easily be seen as an abuse of position. It's nothing less then a Squadron/Battalion Commander handing out Vote for Obama buttons to their troops. It's not something your supposed to do.
Abortion pamphlets in a middle school? Poor analogy.
So do you have anything to say against the message, or are you just going to attack it's format?
If you think it's ok for a Public Official to take a stance in a controversial topic like this (and I don't care what your belief is, in today's world it is a controversial topic), then you have no right to ever complain when some other public official does something that you do not like.
Um, there was no attack. Like I said, poor analogy.
You think public officials should not be allowed to take a stand/have an opinion? Does having an opinion automatically make them unethical? Does permitting religion equal endorsement?
Not at all. They have the rights to those opinions just like the rest of us. They just shouldn't be voicing those opinions to the public, because their position gives them the ability to influence others.
It's a price one has to pay to hold the authority that they do, IMO.
Ok, is there such a thing as a public official who does not voice their opinions and influence others?
Sure there is. You just don't hear about them because they are keeping their mouths shut.
When we join the military, we all voluntarily give up some of the rights garaunteed to use by the Bill of Rights (most namely, the 1st Amendment). It is because when we wear this uniform we gain a stance of power in the public eye. It would be an abuse of that power if we where to do things like campaign while in uniform and such.
The same holds true for a School Superintendant or Principal to be handing out Bibles, or partisan political literature, or other items like that, while on school grounds.
If they wanted to do it from home, or from a church, where these people are private citizens, then that is absolutely fine. But in the place where they have authority and power, it would be an unjust use of tha power to push their opinions onto others.
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
Would you agree with them handing out abortion pamphlets?
I'm not trying to draw a correlation between religion and abortion, I'm just saying that in "controversial" matters, people of authority shouldn't be getting themselves into those situations.
It can easily be seen as an abuse of position. It's nothing less then a Squadron/Battalion Commander handing out Vote for Obama buttons to their troops. It's not something your supposed to do.
Abortion pamphlets in a middle school? Poor analogy.
So do you have anything to say against the message, or are you just going to attack it's format?
If you think it's ok for a Public Official to take a stance in a controversial topic like this (and I don't care what your belief is, in today's world it is a controversial topic), then you have no right to ever complain when some other public official does something that you do not like.
Um, there was no attack. Like I said, poor analogy.
You think public officials should not be allowed to take a stand/have an opinion? Does having an opinion automatically make them unethical? Does permitting religion equal endorsement?
Not at all. They have the rights to those opinions just like the rest of us. They just shouldn't be voicing those opinions to the public, because their position gives them the ability to influence others.
It's a price one has to pay to hold the authority that they do, IMO.
Ok, is there such a thing as a public official who does not voice their opinions and influence others?
Sure there is. You just don't hear about them because they are keeping their mouths shut.
When we join the military, we all voluntarily give up some of the rights garaunteed to use by the Bill of Rights (most namely, the 1st Amendment). It is because when we wear this uniform we gain a stance of power in the public eye. It would be an abuse of that power if we where to do things like campaign while in uniform and such.
The same holds true for a School Superintendant or Principal to be handing out Bibles, or partisan political literature, or other items like that, while on school grounds.
If they wanted to do it from home, or from a church, where these people are private citizens, then that is absolutely fine. But in the place where they have authority and power, it would be an unjust use of tha power to push their opinions onto others.
Not exactly. Schools are not military units, and school personnel are not some representatives of the greater nation. They are members of a community who should reflect the ideas of the majority of the parents and children they serve. That would be the 85% of the public who are Christians or are greatly in tune with Christian values.
The other 15% can either tolerate the majority or seek private education. There is nothing in the idea of American values which implies the 85% should turn their backs on their religious beliefs and their social system in order to accommodated the wishes of every freak and pagan who comes along.
Schools should be an extension of the majority of children's home. Not some foreign "salad bowl" with nothing to ground them. Without values and the reason those values exist, what is the point?
As for the other 15%, learning and following the Ten Commandments never harmed anyone.
-
I don't see a problem with allowing people to pass out religious texts in or near public schools as long as the people passing them out aren't school administrators or teachers.
Yeah, those people shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. :whatever: :mental:
Would you agree with them handing out abortion pamphlets?
I'm not trying to draw a correlation between religion and abortion, I'm just saying that in "controversial" matters, people of authority shouldn't be getting themselves into those situations.
It can easily be seen as an abuse of position. It's nothing less then a Squadron/Battalion Commander handing out Vote for Obama buttons to their troops. It's not something your supposed to do.
Abortion pamphlets in a middle school? Poor analogy.
So do you have anything to say against the message, or are you just going to attack it's format?
If you think it's ok for a Public Official to take a stance in a controversial topic like this (and I don't care what your belief is, in today's world it is a controversial topic), then you have no right to ever complain when some other public official does something that you do not like.
Um, there was no attack. Like I said, poor analogy.
You think public officials should not be allowed to take a stand/have an opinion? Does having an opinion automatically make them unethical? Does permitting religion equal endorsement?
Not at all. They have the rights to those opinions just like the rest of us. They just shouldn't be voicing those opinions to the public, because their position gives them the ability to influence others.
It's a price one has to pay to hold the authority that they do, IMO.
Ok, is there such a thing as a public official who does not voice their opinions and influence others?
Sure there is. You just don't hear about them because they are keeping their mouths shut.
When we join the military, we all voluntarily give up some of the rights garaunteed to use by the Bill of Rights (most namely, the 1st Amendment). It is because when we wear this uniform we gain a stance of power in the public eye. It would be an abuse of that power if we where to do things like campaign while in uniform and such.
The same holds true for a School Superintendant or Principal to be handing out Bibles, or partisan political literature, or other items like that, while on school grounds.
If they wanted to do it from home, or from a church, where these people are private citizens, then that is absolutely fine. But in the place where they have authority and power, it would be an unjust use of tha power to push their opinions onto others.
Therein lies the falacy. You can't "push an opinion onto others". Just as it's impossible to force another person to have faith. It's their choice.
...and what Lord Undies said...
-
Not exactly. Schools are not military units, and school personnel are not some representatives of the greater nation. They are members of a community who should reflect the ideas of the majority of the parents and children they serve. That would be the 85% of the public who are Christians or are greatly in tune with Christian values.
The other 15% can either tolerate the majority or seek private education. There is nothing in the idea of American values which implies the 85% should turn their backs on their religious beliefs and their social system in order to accommodated the wishes of every freak and pagan who comes along.
Schools should be an extension of the majority of children's home. Not some foreign "salad bowl" with nothing to ground them. Without values and the reason those values exist, what is the point?
As for the other 15%, learning and following the Ten Commandments never harmed anyone.
So, considering that only 22% of Americans support a ban on abortion, you have no problem with health classes in highschools being used to promote abortion as a means for dealing with unwanted pregnancies? After all, majority rules, right?