Federal judge orders jail for those praying at texas graduation ceremony

[Atreus21]

It's like telling a christain how right abortion really is. You not gonna win...

Typically we don't win because inevitably you guys devolve into saying that sex doesn't really lead to pregnancy. At which point a blank stare is all we have left.

 

[Darwin333]

Because US law distinguishes between different types of public property.

There are public forums such as streets, sidewalks, etc. Here, the government has very little ability to control speech, religious expression, etc. Then there are non-public forums, such as schools, the FBI building, the Capitol building, and things like that. In these non commons, the government exercises far more authority to control speech.

This is the reason why as a general rule if you were yelling about Jesus on a street corner, the government couldn't come and stop you. If you decided to yell about Jesus in the middle of a courtroom, an FBI task force meeting, etc, the government can, and will kick your ass.

Because the government exerts substantial control over what happens in a non-public forum as opposed to a public forum, the actions that take place in a non-public forum have an aspect of government sponsorship to them that doesn't exist otherwise.

Rather ironic that you used the Capitol building an courts as examples...

 

[Darwin333]

Typically we don't win because inevitably you guys devolve into saying that sex doesn't really lead to pregnancy. At which point a blank stare is all we have left.

You don't win the larger debate because you say that you must live your life based on a book that you must simply have "faith" that it is (or was inspired) by the word of an unproven being that by definition defies everything we know.

You can prove that sex can lead to pregnancy so you win that argument.

Again, by very definition, you can not even begin to prove that God does or has ever existed and in fact everything we know so far about the universe says it is impossible for him to exist. Any argument that you can make will hold as much water as any bullshit that I can come up with in a few minutes about some fake deity.

See the difference?

Again, by very definition, your belief requires faith which literally means that you believe in something which has absolutely no proof. You simply can not have an actual "winnable" debate about that because it requires some sort of proof to "win".

 

[fskimospy]

Rather ironic that you used the Capitol building an courts as examples...

Why?

 

[fskimospy]

Congress opens with a prayer.

How do you explain that?

The separation of powers. The courts are not going to tell the legislature how to conduct their daily business.

Do you seriously not understand how this all works?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The separation of powers. The courts are not going to tell the legislature how to conduct their daily business.

Do you seriously not understand how this all works?

That's good because the next thing is that the courts could mandate action contrary to legislation. They would never so such a thing.

 

[fskimospy]

That's good because the next thing is that the courts could mandate action contrary to legislation. They would never so such a thing.

Why are you trying to equate judicial review to courts interfering with the internal workings of Congress?

 

[werepossum]

To be clear, because you keep failing to make the distinction, the student in question must be formally delivering a speech to incur those restrictions. Students could start praying out loud at the ceremony if they wanted. There is no "maybe this" or "maybe that." That is arguing from ignorance.

And your thread title "federal judge orders jail" is misleading and hyperbolic. It could be read as meaning that specific people were sent to jail. Even the more scaled back interpretation is problematic. The judge made an order about religious content in addressing an audience at a graduation ceremony. Any court order carries with it the possible citation for contempt for violating the order. That is the law of I believe every state and the federal system. Citation means a fine or jail or both, but jail for violating this sort of order is extremely remote. Regardless, the judge did not make this law. It's already on the books. So it doesn't matter what the judge's order was, jail would be a theoretical possibility for anyone violating it. Since "jail" is a possibility for violating any court order, there is really no point in even mentioning it in an article like that, but then, it should be pretty obvious why this source chose to mention it, and why they chose to quote only those critical of the ruling and no one defending it.

So you're okay with speakers being jailed for choosing to pray, invoking G-d, or saying "Amen". Gotcha. I guess this analogous to those who support anti-sodomy laws, on the basis that the chance of jail (at lest for straight people) is remote and only the truly heinous violators (gay men = Christians) will be affected.

Because US law distinguishes between different types of public property.

There are public forums such as streets, sidewalks, etc. Here, the government has very little ability to control speech, religious expression, etc. Then there are non-public forums, such as schools, the FBI building, the Capitol building, and things like that. In these non commons, the government exercises far more authority to control speech.

This is the reason why as a general rule if you were yelling about Jesus on a street corner, the government couldn't come and stop you. If you decided to yell about Jesus in the middle of a courtroom, an FBI task force meeting, etc, the government can, and will kick your ass.

Because the government exerts substantial control over what happens in a non-public forum as opposed to a public forum, the actions that take place in a non-public forum have an aspect of government sponsorship to them that doesn't exist otherwise.

Until relatively recently, US law also differentiated between government establishing a state religion and government eradicating any presence of religion. Such distinctions are only valid for as long as the progressives can be held back from establishing their own religion, secular humanism, from becoming the law of the land, enforced by the armed might of government.

5th overrules

/thread

Pretty much this. But the war isn't over, even though the religious masses have won this battle.

 

[infoiltrator]

When will swearing on the Bible become illegal? Undoubtedly some ass complained, and the judge is a literalist, an idiot, or a fool. Or the prosecutor is.
When will "in God We Trust " come off currency?
sugar brains..

 

[fskimospy]

Until relatively recently, US law also differentiated between government establishing a state religion and government eradicating any presence of religion. Such distinctions are only valid for as long as the progressives can be held back from establishing their own religion, secular humanism, from becoming the law of the land, enforced by the armed might of government.

Once again, you hold absolutely bizarre ideas about what progressives want. I have no idea how a desire not to be proselytized to during a graduation event is somehow indicative of a plan to legally destroy religion through armed repression.

Oh, and secularism isn't a religion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why are you trying to equate judicial review to courts interfering with the internal workings of Congress?

Why do you think Congress should be above the Constitution? Clearly the SCOTUS doesn't think it is. Then there's this tidbit:

"God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"

The government isn't on a campaign to purge all references to God. Limiting, but to the point where newspeak kicks in? No.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for or against, but the SCOTUS hasn't said that a student saying a prayer forbidden by the Constitution. They can't have a member of the clergy do it of course, nor compel a speaker to do so. If however a student wishes to bring it up or express religion as being something they value then that is their right under existing law. Maybe you're saying the same thing. Haven't read every post.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You don't win the larger debate because you say that you must live your life based on a book that you must simply have "faith" that it is (or was inspired) by the word of an unproven being that by definition defies everything we know.

You can prove that sex can lead to pregnancy so you win that argument.

Again, by very definition, you can not even begin to prove that God does or has ever existed and in fact everything we know so far about the universe says it is impossible for him to exist. Any argument that you can make will hold as much water as any bullshit that I can come up with in a few minutes about some fake deity.

See the difference?

Again, by very definition, your belief requires faith which literally means that you believe in something which has absolutely no proof. You simply can not have an actual "winnable" debate about that because it requires some sort of proof to "win".

Something cann't come from nothing

 

[werepossum]

Once again, you hold absolutely bizarre ideas about what progressives want. I have no idea how a desire not to be proselytized to during a graduation event is somehow indicative of a plan to legally destroy religion through armed repression.

Oh, and secularism isn't a religion.

Yeah, I have this failing. I deduce what progressives want by what they do and attempt to do rather than by what the SAY they want.

And of course secularism is a religion, complete with churches (government schools), priests (unionized government teachers), and sacraments (abortion).

 

[fskimospy]

Why do you think Congress should be above the Constitution? Clearly the SCOTUS doesn't think it is.

Can you show me a single, solitary ruling where the USSC has attempted to alter the internal workings of Congress? There might be one somewhere, but I highly doubt it. What I'm trying to say is that its an area of our government that the Supreme Court has EXTREMELY limited ability to intervene in, so it's not surprising that they've never done anything about it.

The government isn't on a campaign to purge all references to God. Limiting, but to the point where newspeak kicks in? No.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for or against, but the SCOTUS hasn't said that a student saying a prayer forbidden by the Constitution. They can't have a member of the clergy do it of course, nor compel a speaker to do so. If however a student wishes to bring it up or express religion as being something they value then that is their right under existing law. Maybe you're saying the same thing. Haven't read every post.

I completely agree with you on that, I was mostly arguing against the crazy people in this thread.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, I have this failing. I deduce what progressives want by what they do and attempt to do rather than by what the SAY they want.

And of course secularism is a religion, complete with churches (government schools), priests (unionized government teachers), and sacraments (abortion).

But it's pretty clear that your deductive powers need some help. You consistently come up with these insane theories about what progressives think and want that have no bearing on reality. Like this time.

It's very odd that as a progressive, I learn from you all of these crazy plots and opinions that I apparently hold, despite never having thought a single one of them in my entire life.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Yeah, I have this failing. I deduce what progressives want by what they do and attempt to do rather than by what the SAY they want.

Indeed, trying to deduce through a fail worldview would be a failing on your part.

Liberal philosophy comes from mental growth. You can't deduce it through the pre-growth position of conservatism -- that mentality simply isn't big enough.

Do you really think that what some mindless idiot who graduated high school with a D average pulls out of his ass while he's sitting in front of his television in his underwear watching pro wrestling (believing it's real) is the equal to the summation of the thoughts and methods of philosophers and theologians of the past 3000 years?

The foundation of intellectual thought is HUGE. We are lucky enough to be standing on the shoulders of giants. If we did not have this structure standing here pre-built for our use, even one of my towering intellect would be but a blind sheep lost in the woods. (I remember the way I thought prior to an agnostic by the name of Valar1 getting annoyed with me and shoving a list of logical fallacies in my face. It was on that day, as I sat there seeing every one of those fallacies present in my own natural thinking, that I became a truly thinking human being.)

This structure is huge, and a stupid, natural-thinking conservative just has nothing to compare. Oh, so you say "God" took the time out to help you win your basketball game? I'm sure Anslem wouldn't have had a problem with that line of thought.

Conservatism and liberalism do not come from equal belief-forming methodologies. (While the lower echelon of liberals are conservative believers, their faith in their betters is at least justifiable. We're good. They only need a light dusting of critical thinking to be able to formulate that picture from random spot checks.)

So perhaps you should stop thinking that we're on the same level, and that your current level of thinking is sufficient to process what's before you.
Conservative beliefs are children's beliefs. An adult can process those with ease.
Liberal beliefs are adult beliefs. A child has problems with those.

In order to understand liberal thought you have to have grown up enough to perform liberal thought.
You haven't.

 

[OutHouse]

Indeed, trying to deduce through a fail worldview would be a failing on your part.

Liberal philosophy comes from mental growth. You can't deduce it through the pre-growth position of conservatism -- that mentality simply isn't big enough.

Do you really think that what some mindless idiot who graduated high school with a D average pulls out of his ass while he's sitting in front of his television in his underwear watching pro wrestling (believing it's real) is the equal to the summation of the thoughts and methods of philosophers and theologians of the past 3000 years?

The foundation of intellectual thought is HUGE. We are lucky enough to be standing on the shoulders of giants. If we did not have this structure standing here pre-built for our use, even one of my towering intellect would be but a blind sheep lost in the woods. (I remember the way I thought prior to an agnostic by the name of Valar1 getting annoyed with me and shoving a list of logical fallacies in my face. It was on that day, as I sat there seeing every one of those fallacies present in my own natural thinking, that I became a truly thinking human being.)

This structure is huge, and a stupid, natural-thinking conservative just has nothing to compare. Oh, so you say "God" took the time out to help you win your basketball game? I'm sure Anslem wouldn't have had a problem with that line of thought.

Conservatism and liberalism do not come from equal belief-forming methodologies. (While the lower echelon of liberals are conservative believers, their faith in their betters is at least justifiable. We're good. They only need a light dusting of critical thinking to be able to formulate that picture from random spot checks.)

So perhaps you should stop thinking that we're on the same level, and that your current level of thinking is sufficient to process what's before you.
Conservative beliefs are children's beliefs. An adult can process those with ease.
Liberal beliefs are adult beliefs. A child has problems with those.

In order to understand liberal thought you have to have grown up enough to perform liberal thought.
You haven't.

good grief you are a clown. Liberal philosophy??? you seriously just stated that liberals are more evolved??? your "eliteism" makes me want to puke.

FYI, i know quite a few "liberals" who are religious. hell even Obama goes to church every sunday and PRAYS, oh he also ends his speeches with "god bless the united states of america"

 

[dmcowen674]

Didn't see anything on the news on this, did they lock them all up?

 

[-Slacker-]

Seems pretty excessive. I'm fine in taking the school's right to force students to pray and that kind of shit, but this is just...

 

[ahenkel]

Is it that hard to just have a moment of reflection. Does pray not count if you don't say god or jesus and amen?

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Go ahead and say jesus and amen on stage but dont be pissed if I went on and said Allah Akbar and bow 5 times.

 

[freegeeks]

I don't understand why religion and public education are so mixed together in the USA. Over here it's simple. You have catholic schools and you have public schools. In the public schools you can choose to have whatevere religious classes you want (islam, roman catholics, protestant, jewish, ...) and the school provide a teacher. Non religious people can choose not to attend any classes and just get some kind of ethics/philosophy class for 2 hours a week. Outside of these official classes, there is 100% neutrality. During graduation, catholics just organised something outside of school, the same for muslims, jews, ...

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Didn't see anything on the news on this, did they lock them all up?

Obviously you didn't take time read in this thread before posting. Maybe you should stick to lying about gas prices in Chicago and being carded when purchasing vinegar.

 

[shadow9d9]

I figured people would jump to support this. But it is totally against freedom of speech. A kid can say whatever they want to. Sorry to say. School can't embrace prayer, but if the kids want to, thats their choice. Now they will be violating laws? haha. Totally against the constitution.

You have no idea what freedom of speech refers to obviously. This is not a public place. It is a private ceremony held by the government. It is no different than setting up "free speech zones" miles away from political speakers.

 

[shadow9d9]

Something cann't come from nothing

Including your god.