Wanna Really Know What Pisses Cap'n Cat Off? This......

[D1B]

What a fascist you are, Cap. A group of high school athletes are engaging in their protected First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, and you demand that the state take unconstitutional action to stop it.

What a dumbass you are, Joe. State employees are facilitating organized prayer on state property, on state time and during a state sanctioned school event.

Unlike you Joe, I've actually been involved in team sports. Those stupid fucking "prayer" gatherings aint impromptu and the coaches (state employees) encourage and participate in it.

Oh, yeah, invaribly it's christian bullshit, like the stupid "Our Father" or something utterly unoriginal like that. They're ususally led by some douchebag second or third stringer who has found a role on the team, other than playing of course.

[JoltinJoe]

What a fascist you are, Cap. A group of high school athletes are engaging in their protected First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, and you demand that the state take unconstitutional action to stop it.

What a dumbass you are, Joe. State employees are facilitating organized prayer on state property, on state time and during a state sanctioned school event.

Unlike you Joe, I've actually been involved in team sports. Those stupid **** "prayer" gatherings aint impromptu and the coaches (state employees) encourage and participate in it.

Oh, yeah, invaribly it's christian bullshit, like the stupid "Our Father" or something utterly unoriginal like that. They're ususally led by some douchebag second or third stringer who has found a role on the team, other than playing of course.

What makes you think I didn't play team sports in high school? Was on both the baseball and soccer teams. My high school baseball coach was the first guy to call me "JoltinJoe," in deference to my dad's favorite player.

What in the constitution prevents team members from engaging in an organized prayer prior to a game?

Incidentally, take a look at my signature. Who is this "Creator" that our founders are crediting with creating all men equal, and endowing them with certain unalienable rights? The notion that our founders intended a strict "separation of church and state" (a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution) is ill-informed. What the founders intended was that the state would not endorse any particular faith system; however, they had no beef with public, generic invocations and routinely offered such a prayer before their own legislative sessions. Both the House of Representatives and Senate have chaplains who, to this day, open each session with a generic invocation. The belief that the separation of church and state involves all separation of God and the state is not supported by the text of the Constitution or American tradition.

How can a group of high school students doing exactly what our founders did be unconstitutional?

[Gil Dobie]

Jesus and God and Allah and Raj and Buddha and Jodie Foster are not part of the educational mission of the schools.

Correct, but people should not be denied their freedom to act on their beliefs as they understand them no matter where they are or who they are with. No one is denying your right to denounce organized religion.

[D1B]

What a dumbass you are, Joe. State employees are facilitating organized prayer on state property, on state time and during a state sanctioned school event.

Unlike you Joe, I've actually been involved in team sports. Those stupid **** "prayer" gatherings aint impromptu and the coaches (state employees) encourage and participate in it.

Oh, yeah, invaribly it's christian bullshit, like the stupid "Our Father" or something utterly unoriginal like that. They're ususally led by some douchebag second or third stringer who has found a role on the team, other than playing of course.

What makes you think I didn't play team sports in high school? Was on both the baseball and soccer teams. My high school baseball coach was the first guy to call me "JoltinJoe," in deference to my dad's favorite player.

What in the constitution prevents team members from engaging in an organized prayer prior to a game?

Incidentally, take a look at my signature. Who is this "Creator" that our founders are crediting with creating all men equal, and endowing them with certain unalienable rights? The notion that our founders intended a strict "separation of church and state" (a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution) is ill-informed. What the founders intended was that the state would not endorse any particular faith system; however, they had no beef with public, generic invocations and routinely offered such a prayer before their own legislative sessions. Both the House of Representatives and Senate have chaplains who, to this day, open each session with a generic invocation. The belief that the separation of church and state involves all separation of God and the state is not supported by the text of the Constitution or American tradition.

How can a group of high school students doing exactly what our founders did be unconstitutional?

Joe, no organized prayer in public schools. Don't be a laywer prick, again. You've supported this in past discussions.

The constitution was written several hundred years ago by slave owners. Get it?

[JoltinJoe]

What makes you think I didn't play team sports in high school? Was on both the baseball and soccer teams. My high school baseball coach was the first guy to call me "JoltinJoe," in deference to my dad's favorite player.

What in the constitution prevents team members from engaging in an organized prayer prior to a game?

Incidentally, take a look at my signature. Who is this "Creator" that our founders are crediting with creating all men equal, and endowing them with certain unalienable rights? The notion that our founders intended a strict "separation of church and state" (a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution) is ill-informed. What the founders intended was that the state would not endorse any particular faith system; however, they had no beef with public, generic invocations and routinely offered such a prayer before their own legislative sessions. Both the House of Representatives and Senate have chaplains who, to this day, open each session with a generic invocation. The belief that the separation of church and state involves all separation of God and the state is not supported by the text of the Constitution or American tradition.

How can a group of high school students doing exactly what our founders did be unconstitutional?

Joe, no organized prayer in public schools. Don't be a laywer prick, again. You've supported this in past discussions.

The constitution was written several hundred years ago by slave owners. Get it?

No, what I've supported in the past is not allowing a generic Christian invocation at a public event or gathering.

If a group of athletes, all of whom are Christian, want to gather and say a Christian prayer before a game, I have no problem with that. If one of them wanted to say the same Christian prayer from the dais at their season-ending awards ceremony, I do have a problem with that. If he said a generic invocation at the same event, I have no problem with that either.

[Cap'n Cat]

What a fascist you are, Cap. A group of high school athletes are engaging in their protected First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, and you demand that the state take unconstitutional action to stop it.

Hey, Perry Mason. You know what I'm talking about. And, clenz, per habit, you didn't comprehend my points. The coach, an instrument of the state, is allowing it. Thus, it's against the law.

[JayJ79]

Hey, Perry Mason. You know what I'm talking about. And, clenz, per habit, you didn't comprehend my points. The coach, an instrument of the state, is allowing it. Thus, it's against the law.

And if the coach did NOT allow it, then it would be against the law as well, as it would be a violation of the players freedom of religion.

[AZGrizFan]

What a fascist you are, Cap. A group of high school athletes are engaging in their protected First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, and you demand that the state take unconstitutional action to stop it.

Hey, Perry Mason. You know what I'm talking about. And, clenz, per habit, you didn't comprehend my points. The coach, an instrument of the state, is allowing it. Thus, it's against the law.

That's quite a reach....even for you.

[JoltinJoe]

What a fascist you are, Cap. A group of high school athletes are engaging in their protected First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, and you demand that the state take unconstitutional action to stop it.

Hey, Perry Mason. You know what I'm talking about. And, clenz, per habit, you didn't comprehend my points. The coach, an instrument of the state, is allowing it. Thus, it's against the law.

No it's not. What's your source for that?

[Cap'n Cat]

Hey, Perry Mason. You know what I'm talking about. And, clenz, per habit, you didn't comprehend my points. The coach, an instrument of the state, is allowing it. Thus, it's against the law.

And if the coach did NOT allow it, then it would be against the law as well, as it would be a violation of the players freedom of religion.

Ah, no, Jay. Years of precedent support my position - the wall of separation. Prayers at public functions have been struck down for decades, yet there remain many more battles to fight. Most, such as this soccer team prayer thing are born out of ignorance of the law.

Remember that the First Amendment was written centuries before current issues. Another reason, BTW, why the Consitution needs to be a flexible document.

Closed circuit to Z: Again, you don't give a fvck about this issue, so be gone with you. You look ridiculous toeing the Conk line on this.

[Cap'n Cat]

Hey, Perry Mason. You know what I'm talking about. And, clenz, per habit, you didn't comprehend my points. The coach, an instrument of the state, is allowing it. Thus, it's against the law.

No it's not. What's your source for that?

Mountains of precedent, Joe, and I ain't looking it up again. Been fighting this battle for decades.

[JoltinJoe]

No it's not. What's your source for that?

Mountains of precedent, Joe, and I ain't looking it up again. Been fighting this battle for decades.

There is no precedent that holds that a state actor cannot "allow" for public prayer by public school students. In fact the law is entirely to the contrary: it is illegal for the state actor to interfere with that expression.

If the state actor organizes or officially endorses it, that's a different story.

This article is an excellent summary and does a great job explaining the current status of the law.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=17

[Cap'n Cat]

Mountains of precedent, Joe, and I ain't looking it up again. Been fighting this battle for decades.

There is no precedent that holds that a state actor cannot "allow" for public prayer by public school students. In fact the law is entirely to the contrary: it is illegal for the state actor to interfere with that expression.

If the state actor organizes or officially endoreses it, that's a different story.

This article is an excellent summary and does a great job explaining the current status of the law.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=17

Good article, Joe, but, it is different state-to-state. Of course, I'll side with the more progressive interpretations.

[JoltinJoe]

There is no precedent that holds that a state actor cannot "allow" for public prayer by public school students. In fact the law is entirely to the contrary: it is illegal for the state actor to interfere with that expression.

If the state actor organizes or officially endoreses it, that's a different story.

This article is an excellent summary and does a great job explaining the current status of the law.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=17

Good article, Joe, but, it is different state-to-state. Of course, I'll side with the more progressive interpretations.

It doesn't vary by state, because the right to voluntary association and assembly for public prayer is a right protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Any state law, or provision of a state constitution, which would purport to limit that right is invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution.

The state actor in this matter can neither endorse, sanction, organize the team's prayer; nor restrict the team members' rights to participate in this prayer. That's uniform law throughout the US.

Whether a student amy lead a prayer at a school-sponsored event -- gray area. But it is firmly established that the school may not endorse, organize, sanction aand require participation in prayer; nor can it interfere with the students' rights to voluntarily associate in a non-sponsored way for the purposes of offering a prayer.

[Cap'n Cat]

Good article, Joe, but, it is different state-to-state. Of course, I'll side with the more progressive interpretations.

It doesn't vary by state, because the right to voluntary association and assembly for public prayer is a right protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Any state law, or provision of a state constitution, which would purport to limit that right is invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution.

The state actor in this matter can neither endorse, sanction, organize the team's prayer; nor restrict the team members' rights to participate in this prayer. That's a uniform law throughout the US.

And, as I said in posts above, when a state instrument ignores that fact that it is going on, this constitutes endorsing and sanctioning it, albeit tacitly. He/she knows it's wrong to be doing it at a state function. Your verbiage above, while very learned, is a huge blanket that does not ferret out or address everything that is going on.

Christmas songs that reference Christ have been, and are, disappearing from school plays, replaced with "Winter" celebrations. It goes on and on, too.

[JoltinJoe]

And, as I said in posts above, when a state instrument ignores that fact that it is going on, this constitutes endorsing and sanctioning it, albeit tacitly. He/she knows it's wrong to be doing it at a state function. Your verbiage above, while very learned, is a huge blanket that does not ferret out or address everything that is going on.

This statement is simply incorrect. The courts have repeatedly rejected your argument. As I said previously, the US Supreme Court has held that the state actor cannot restrict the right to voluntarily participate in prayer, even if the prayer happens on public school grounds.

Christmas songs that reference Christ have been, and are, disappearing from school plays, replaced with "Winter" celebrations. It goes on and on, too.

This may be true, but it is not clear it is constitutionally required. On the other hand, I drove past a municipal building on my way to work today, and there was a creche display -- with no other "winter" celebration stuff around. Funny, because creche displays are not allowed on public property, unless they are surrounded by sufficient non-religious or secular symbols (what commentators have come to call the "three reindeer rule"). I would think the same holds true for holiday shows. The kids can sing "Silent Night" as long as they sing songs regarding other religious traditions and secular songs too.

[putter]

Absolutely horrified. But, on the other hand, You'd be **** GIDDY if that happened.

And NOONE would EVER dare to question the actions of a muslim in America. That would be non-PC. So I feel pretty confident that ain't ever gonna happen.

Not so, good sir. GATW loathes all religions equally and, like Cap'n, believes they have no place in ANY government run setting. The fact that I don't automatically label all Muslims as America-hating extremists doesn't mean I wouldn't question their actions like I would those of Christians.

There is the key. You do know that the founding fathers only wanted religion kept out of government so that there would not be persecution that happened to them????? Nowhere did they say, "Dont believe in God, or Allah, or whomever" Problem is, if we had more kids who did this, maybe there would be more respect for life and our fellow man....

[Gil Dobie]

Remember that the First Amendment was written centuries before current issues. Another reason, BTW, why the Consitution needs to be a flexible document.

The message about "Though shalt not kill" was written centuries before current issues. Another reason, BTW, why this message needs to be a flexible message.

[DJH]

It doesn't vary by state, because the right to voluntary association and assembly for public prayer is a right protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Any state law, or provision of a state constitution, which would purport to limit that right is invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution.

The state actor in this matter can neither endorse, sanction, organize the team's prayer; nor restrict the team members' rights to participate in this prayer. That's a uniform law throughout the US.

And, as I said in posts above, when a state instrument ignores that fact that it is going on, this constitutes endorsing and sanctioning it, albeit tacitly. He/she knows it's wrong to be doing it at a state function. Your verbiage above, while very learned, is a huge blanket that does not ferret out or address everything that is going on.

Ignoring it is endorsing and sactioning it? That just doesn't make any sense, at all.

[Cap'n Cat]

And, as I said in posts above, when a state instrument ignores that fact that it is going on, this constitutes endorsing and sanctioning it, albeit tacitly. He/she knows it's wrong to be doing it at a state function. Your verbiage above, while very learned, is a huge blanket that does not ferret out or address everything that is going on.

This statement is simply incorrect. The courts have repeatedly rejected your argument. As I said previously, the US Supreme Court has held that the state actor cannot restrict the right to voluntarily participate in prayer, even if the prayer happens on public school grounds.

Christmas songs that reference Christ have been, and are, disappearing from school plays, replaced with "Winter" celebrations. It goes on and on, too.

This may be true, but it is not clear it is constitutionally required. On the other hand, I drove past a municipal building on my way to work today, and there was a creche display -- with no other "winter" celebration stuff around. Funny, because creche displays are not allowed on public property, unless they are surrounded by sufficient non-religious or secular symbols (what commentators have come to call the "three reindeer rule"). I would think the same holds true for holiday shows. The kids can sing "Silent Night" as long as they sing songs regarding other religious traditions and secular songs too.

Joe, re my first paragraph, I think you're being too absolute and that is NOT the exact intent of the law. If I get some energy, I'll look up my own data. Thanks for your comments.

Re the second one paragraph, I stated long ago in this thread that the majority tend to excuse what is against the law here because few seem to care one way or the other. Creches violate the law left and right because few challenge them. Oranizations like the ACLU and People For The American Way are overwhelmed at Xmas time, trying to beat back offenders. It's a rat race and lots of rats get through the wide filter our Consitution Might seem to) allow them. As time goes on and the world gets more secular, these things will disappear.

DJH, don't know what to tell you. We two are on entirely different wavelengths. I won't try to convince you. Take some time and look up things around this issue.

As the thread title says, this really pisses Cap'n Cat off.

[JoltinJoe]

Joe, re my first paragraph, I think you're being too absolute and that is NOT the exact intent of the law. If I get some energy, I'll look up my own data. Thanks for your comments.

Widmar v. Evans, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).


I've cited this case about 50 times recently in a matter.

[D1B]

This statement is simply incorrect. The courts have repeatedly rejected your argument. As I said previously, the US Supreme Court has held that the state actor cannot restrict the right to voluntarily participate in prayer, even if the prayer happens on public school grounds.



This may be true, but it is not clear it is constitutionally required. On the other hand, I drove past a municipal building on my way to work today, and there was a creche display -- with no other "winter" celebration stuff around. Funny, because creche displays are not allowed on public property, unless they are surrounded by sufficient non-religious or secular symbols (what commentators have come to call the "three reindeer rule"). I would think the same holds true for holiday shows. The kids can sing "Silent Night" as long as they sing songs regarding other religious traditions and secular songs too.

Joe, re my first paragraph, I think you're being too absolute and that is NOT the exact intent of the law. If I get some energy, I'll look up my own data. Thanks for your comments.

Re the second one paragraph, I stated long ago in this thread that the majority tend to excuse what is against the law here because few seem to care one way or the other. Creches violate the law left and right because few challenge them. Oranizations like the ACLU and People For The American Way are overwhelmed at Xmas time, trying to beat back offenders. It's a rat race and lots of rats get through the wide filter our Consitution Might seem to) allow them. As time goes on and the world gets more secular, these things will disappear.

DJH, don't know what to tell you. We two are on entirely different wavelengths. I won't try to convince you. Take some time and look up things around this issue.

As the thread title says, this really pisses Cap'n Cat off.

[D1B]

This statement is simply incorrect. The courts have repeatedly rejected your argument. As I said previously, the US Supreme Court has held that the state actor cannot restrict the right to voluntarily participate in prayer, even if the prayer happens on public school grounds.



This may be true, but it is not clear it is constitutionally required. On the other hand, I drove past a municipal building on my way to work today, and there was a creche display -- with no other "winter" celebration stuff around. Funny, because creche displays are not allowed on public property, unless they are surrounded by sufficient non-religious or secular symbols (what commentators have come to call the "three reindeer rule"). I would think the same holds true for holiday shows. The kids can sing "Silent Night" as long as they sing songs regarding other religious traditions and secular songs too.

Joe, re my first paragraph, I think you're being too absolute and that is NOT the exact intent of the law. If I get some energy, I'll look up my own data. Thanks for your comments.

Re the second one paragraph, I stated long ago in this thread that the majority tend to excuse what is against the law here because few seem to care one way or the other. Creches violate the law left and right because few challenge them. Oranizations like the ACLU and People For The American Way are overwhelmed at Xmas time, trying to beat back offenders. It's a rat race and lots of rats get through the wide filter our Consitution Might seem to) allow them. As time goes on and the world gets more secular, these things will disappear.

DJH, don't know what to tell you. We two are on entirely different wavelengths. I won't try to convince you. Take some time and look up things around this issue.

As the thread title says, this really pisses Cap'n Cat off.

Joe, will argue his (and likeminded religious zealots) interpretation of the constitution till he's blue in the face, yet countless court cases continue to be won by freethinkers and church/state separation advocates. So fuck him, he don't mean shit.

Cap'n is dead on, some slip through the cracks, in places like Ohio or Mississippi, but that don't mean shit either, ultimately. Freethinkers have lives and families to take care of and typically don't expend unhealthy amounts of financial and emotional resources into shit like this like the Jesus fucks do.

If God were alive today, he'd be an atheist. God bless the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation!

http://ffrf.org/legal/legal3.php

[Cap'n Cat]

Joe, re my first paragraph, I think you're being too absolute and that is NOT the exact intent of the law. If I get some energy, I'll look up my own data. Thanks for your comments.

Widmar v. Evans, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).


I've cited this case about 50 times recently in a matter.

Cool, Jose'. I'll look it up. I can be behind with the laws, for certain, not being a barrister like yourself. Regardless, this is damned near the only thing that enrages The Cap'n, prayer in school.

[D1B]

Widmar v. Evans, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).


I've cited this case about 50 times recently in a matter.

Cool, Jose'. I'll look it up. I can be behind with the laws, for certain, not being a barrister like yourself. Regardless, this is damned near the only thing that enrages The Cap'n, prayer in school.

Yeah, you do that, Ghandi.