Judge: School must remove prayer banner

[WhipperSnapper]

She sounds like a pain in the ass. Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. If she is offended by that I hope her parent buy her a padded room because there are a lot more offensive things in this world.

Freedom of religion means freedom from having the government endorse a religion or force a religion upon you. A public school is a government building.

In contrast, if she walked into someone's private home or a private business and started complaining about the Ten Commandments on the wall, then she would be in the wrong.

 

[woolfe9999]

"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 love that the aclu and liberal judges only focus on the first part 'establishment' of religion. And never the part about prohibiting the free exercise.

IMHO telling the school to remove the sign is equivalent to prohibiting religion.

Nonsense. Nothing about this precludes people from praying in school, on their own.

Also, the ACLU has many times taken up free exercise cases. This, however, is an establishment clause issue.

 

[etrigan420]

So the real question for Conservatives is how would you feel if someone had a poster of Quran sayings up on that same wall? Probably wouldn't be singing the same tune...

DING DING DING!!!

What do we have for him Johnny???

The conservatives would be singing the "Sharia Law" tune, that much is obvious.

I see the usual half-wits are here decrying the decision.

 

[woolfe9999]

And how does that "endorse" an religion?

Is it forcing anyone to be a certain religion?
It it punishing anyone for not being a certain religion?

This ruling is beyond ridiculous.

Endorsement is not the same as coercion. Endorsement is the current SCOTUS standard here. Coercion used to be. See Sandra Day O'Conner's concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What part is being followed here?

This part, Amendment #1

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.

Consequently, Section 1 of Amendment 14 has been read by the Supreme Court as applying most if not almost all of the first ten amendments (including the First Amendment) onto the states in a process called incorporation.

Public schools are created and allowed by law. Therefore whatever school authorities do or allow is, in essence, an act of the government.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

"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 love that the aclu and liberal judges only focus on the first part 'establishment' of religion. And never the part about prohibiting the free exercise.

IMHO telling the school to remove the sign is equivalent to prohibiting religion.

Your mistake is a failure to understand whose behavior the First Amendment prohibits. It is NOT a prohibition on private behavior. It doesn't say, "Citizens must allow free speech on their private property." The Bill of Rights is aimed at government, state action. It doesn't apply to the actions of private people.

The meaning of the First Amendment is pretty clear--it's not meant to say that the government can "freely exercise" religion, which would completely contradict the first part of the sentence. Rather, the free exercise clause is aimed at preventing the government from telling people where and when they can worship (on private property) and what religious practices they can maintain.

The important part about the free exercise clause is that it ends up being in conflict with many laws that aren't aimed at directly religion such as prohibitions against polygamy and marijuana usage in religious ceremonies. Another example is religious parents refusing to allow their children to receive life-saving medical treatments. That's where the free exercise part comes up.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So the real question for Conservatives is how would you feel if someone had a poster of Quran sayings up on that same wall? Probably wouldn't be singing the same tune...

Or lets suppose there were a poster chastising people for religious belief and encouraging them to question their belief in God, calling them morons for having such belief? Would they have a problem with that? What if I wanted to plaster the writings of Robert Ingersol or the text of the book Atheism: The Case Against God on the school walls?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And how does that "endorse" an religion?

If I own a store and I put a big poster up in the window advertising such and such, would you say that I were endorsing it? Doesn't it look a little strange that only a Christian advertisement was posted and that ads for other religions and beliefs were not also posted and equally prominent? What do you think "endorse" means?

Is it forcing anyone to be a certain religion?

By implication, yes. It suggests that more government benefits and favor will accrue to you if you follow the official religion.

This ruling is beyond ridiculous.

So, if the Quran, or a Satanist, or an atheist text were also posted and were as equally prominent, and if such postings could commonly be found in buildings across the United States and even in court rooms, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

 

[lopri]

And how does that "endorse" an religion?

Is it forcing anyone to be a certain religion?
It it punishing anyone for not being a certain religion?

This ruling is beyond ridiculous.

Of course it forces you to observe religious message. If a government hangs up a billboard with graphic content of sexual intercourse by a high school gate, it is "forcing" its content/message to a captive audience (school kids). Kids might like it (lol) but the concerned parents and neighbors will go nuts and someone will likely be fired. Same is true for religious messages.

 

[xBiffx]

Therefore whatever school authorities do or allow is, in essence, an act of the government.

Okay that's a stretch but even if this were the case the sign was created by a student, not the school. Also, I'm still not seeing a law about the establishment of religion here. It's a sign nothing more. No law has been made by this sign.

Also in your quote, you conveniently looked over the part after what you highlighted in red.

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.

 

[BoberFett]

Students discussing religion and praying in school of their volition: OK.

The school itself endorsing religion with this mural: Not OK.

Seems pretty simple.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Conservatives defending the school poster. Answer my question:

"How would you feel if someone had a poster of Quran sayings up on that same wall?"

 

[lopri]

Conservatives defending the school poster. Answer my question:

"How would you feel if someone had a poster of same-sex attraction up on that same wall?"

Might as well. ^_^

 

[Howard]

I don't think it should be taken down. I do, however, think that there should be murals of an equal size, posted for each of all of the world's religions.

 

[Ausm]

Of course it forces you to observe religious message. If a government hangs up a billboard with graphic content of sexual intercourse by a high school gate, it is "forcing" its content/message to a captive audience (school kids). Kids might like it (lol) but the concerned parents and neighbors will go nuts and someone will likely be fired. Same is true for religious messages.

I would have found this more useful then a religious sign when I was in HS.

😉

 

[xBiffx]

I would have found this more useful then a religious sign when I was in HS.

😉

Indeed! :thumbsup:

 

[First]

It's pretty clearly an establishment clause issue, does not prohibit anyone from exercising their religion, and is pretty straight forward and will be upheld.

Anyone saying otherwise isn't particularly well versed in reality.

 

[Double Trouble]

This is the kind of thing that makes the general population view atheists as scum. That mural isn't doing any harm, it's been there for 50 years. Shut the hell up and stop whining.

 

[Todd33]

It's so great to see young people in this nation fight for the Constitution to be followed.

So true. Christians are all all about "just let it be" until it comes to another religion - will they sing the same tune to a Koran in the school? It is a public school, end of story, tax funded not private and religious.

 

[zinfamous]

lol

i can see both sides. but i also think the girl is a whiny wise and beautiful woman.

100%

 

[michal1980]

Nonsense. Nothing about this precludes people from praying in school, on their own.

Also, the ACLU has many times taken up free exercise cases. This, however, is an establishment clause issue.

It only establishs something in the minds of the religion hating liberals.

 

[michal1980]

It's pretty clearly an establishment clause issue, does not prohibit anyone from exercising their religion, and is pretty straight forward and will be upheld.

Anyone saying otherwise isn't particularly well versed in reality.

No its been twisted by liberals and liars like the ACLU.

how does having this sign establish a religion?

it doesn't.

The only people bothered are those that want to get rid of religion, and impose their own atheistic belifs

 

[woolfe9999]

No its been twisted by liberals and liars like the ACLU.

how does having this sign establish a religion?

it doesn't.

The only people bothered are those that want to get rid of religion, and impose their own atheistic belifs

404 imposition of "atheist beliefs" not found. The absence of religious signage at public schools doesn't promote atheism. It promotes nothing at all. Religion or the lack thereof is a private matter.

Small government conservatives who think the government involves itself in too many things should cheer. We don't need to add religion to the list of things that government is involved in.

 

[mrCide]

People are funny. No religion in school, period.

 

[woolfe9999]

This is the kind of thing that makes the general population view atheists as scum. That mural isn't doing any harm, it's been there for 50 years. Shut the hell up and stop whining.

This is about drawing a line, not about the "harm" caused by one sign. If this was an issue that you supported, you'd probably understand that better.