Best line of the night

Page 7 of 11  


well maybe we can come up with a win-win scenario with this logic. Since the KCfPA is a for profit institution and you had to pay admission to demonstrate your sartorial excellence, let people proselytize in public schools all they want as long as they pay a sufficiently high fee for the privilege. That money could be used to build schools where the students would be proselytizing free
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's been several years ago, but I think I remember the schools in, what state was it? California? Were teaching Muslim studies in schools, including having the kids take on Muslim sounding names.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
If the government prohibits proselytizing in government schools then, by definition, the government is meddling in the free exercize of religion. In your view, it seems, you would require those dedicated to spreading their word to affiliate themselves with a foreign deity to avoid offending the irreligious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't doubt there was educational segment dealing with comparative cultures/religions, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen around 9/11, but unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I seriously doubt there was a semester studies on the subject.
For your info, there are also the same studies on slavery and the holocaust plus the American Indians.
But perhaps you prefer the the ostrich technique of education

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep, but over here a "no, thank you" to the Jehovah's witnesses has been sufficient
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/27/2012 7:18 AM, Han wrote:

I've had some that were downright pests so I just started telling any that approached me that I was a Satanist who worshiped The Devil and freaked them out by inviting them to be a sacrifice at our next meeting or whatever the heck you call it. Oh yea, I have to do a loud hiss at them too. o_O
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From a constructionist perspective, one does not have to do much research into the writings of the founders to find that their intention was indeed to erect a wall of separation between church and state. Thomas Jefferson himself used the phrase as early as 1802 to describe the intent of the "establishment clause."
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry W) wrote in

Thanks, Larry. I haven't studied these things as a real native born American should (perhaps?).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry W) wrote:

Yeah but not remotely in the context being suggested. In fact his letter specifically stated that he was looking only at the legislature and not schools, etc., that have been bastardized into today.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their ***legislature*** should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. (emphasis mine)
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Larry W) wrote:

I interpret that to specifically mean that no law shall be made to sanction any religion as official, and that would mean no religious this or that in public schools, since they are directed by law to educate the kids, and so are a direct extension of the legislature. (It's immaterial here that schools in general don't do a good job educating).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The gist is that the constitution, and TJ's suggested interpretation, only impact on active things. That the legislative bodies can't pick out one and make it the official religion. This has nothing to do with more passive actions such as allowing Christmas decorations or even pagents, and especially not disallowing student-lead prayer.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I agree that the "prohibition" against decorations etc has gone a bit too far. Student-led prayer is a different thing, since then a majority, or even a minority, can easily become coercive. Look at a (perhaps crazy) example. If you allow that in a majority Christian/Catholic/Baptist school, you need to allow it also in a majority Jewish community, or Muslim community. I can see it already, before a public high school football game 3/4 of the students prostrate themselves facing east ...
If someone wants to bow their head and mumble a phrase or two, or cross themselves before coming to bat, that's fine, because it is a short and personal gesture. Leading the congregation in prayer is something to be done in church (substitute other religions' peculiarities).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

students vote to include a prayer at graduation ceremonies, which is forbidden. In many instances, they have said a person couldn't use even a biblical reference in their validictory speech.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

OK, as an agnostic, and father of an equally agnostic valedictorian at a public high school, I would say the following: A prayer at graduation is a no-no for me. But, words with a similar meaning without references to God or religion should be easy to find. You come up with the prayer, and I'll "translate", OK? A biblical reference, similarly, I think. I hope I didn't bite off more than I can chew ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about the state decide to "edit" everything you have to say?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's off topic here. We are dealing with minors and public schools. Seems there is a valid reason for preemptive censoring/editing.
On another level: In Holland, and I believe Britain too, the Queen cannot say what she wants, since as head of state she represents the "government", and the prime minister's office has to approve everything she is going to say. Up to and including whether she may were a headscarf - sorry, it's in Dutch about a state visit of the queen to Oman: <http://nos.nl/koningshuis/artikel/330038-beatrix-hoofddoek-onderdrukt - niet.html> "beatrix headscarf represses not" Parliament (in hindsight) approved of her reasoning, whether it really was hers, or her staff's.
A rather right-wing party asked questions in Parliament about the wearing of the headscarf. Beatrix is known for her elaborate head coverings ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, it's not. You're saying that one should submit his speech to another to have it edited before giving it. Once you edit speech for "religious" content, is political content vary far off? You lefties really are all about controlling thought.

Something *SHE* chooses to do. BTW, there was a war fought to separate us from the Queen.

Rather irrelevant, (and as you accused me of, above, *way* "off topic")

Wow! ...just wow!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sorry for not making it clearer. I am saying that a statement in the form of a prayer can also be rephrased so that it isn't formally a prayer. I am NOT suggesting that something like that should become a formal censoring step. More like an evasive maneuver so that a prayer isn't a prayer anymore.

Around 1848 there were revolutions going on in Europe (some more, some less violent). The then current King Willem II of Holland had an overnight epiphany to avoid a violent revolution and charged his prime minister (?) Thorbecke to rewrite the constitution. That led to the modern form of a constitutional monarchy, similar to Britain's, wherein the power to govern rests with the prime minister, subject to parliamentary support. The Queen/King has very little, if any, actual power. So (perceived) abuses of power as left and right have accused US president of, do not happen. On the other hand, cabinets fall sometimes because of petty "no confidence" motions.
The changes in governing "rules" during the broad time period between 1770 and 1850 were applied with much less violence in Holland than in France or the US. The wars during the time, as far as Holland was concerned were the Napoleonic wars, and the 10 day war Holland lost to the "rebels" in Belgium.

Sorry, it was definitely on topic as concerned with the power of the Queen. The debate was whether she should be reprimanded for "giving in" to burka-requiring rules in the Islamic world. As in France, in Holland there is a big issue whether muslim women can go around in public with heavy veiling, and if the Queen acquiesces in that sentiment when visiting a Muslim country (Oman), that is reprehensible according to the anti-burka crowd. SO the issue was did she give in to the anti-burka crowd or was she complying somewhat with local custom? As the picture shows, it was delicately, but somehat tastefully, balanced in that respect.

?? To me Beatrix isn't a real high fashion model ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Crap! When *haven't* there been revolutions going on in Europe. It's not like it has *anything* to do with this thread.
<snipped the rest of the irrelevant Europeon shit>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make your praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary meaning of your words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.
We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other religions generally share the same values, if you snip out the wild idiots.
And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking at public high schools.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.