" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
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.
Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.
Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views. If you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like government is for everybody. If you want to do those things to others, they have the right to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in a movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever was prior restraint, that is it.
This is the part that I have the most trouble with. People often spout about the need to respect other's views by pretty much disrespecting MY views. If those views aren't the ones they are happy with.
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:NpOdnVypvIOCm7vSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
I admit that's a tricky thing, and I had to edit my response before I sent it along . If I sometimes write too stridently, it's "the heat of the moment", and no disrespect is intended, except in answer to truly egregious statements
Bullshit. You want to censor others views. PC is *exactly* that.
Does it hurt you if I pray for an 'A'? Does it hurt you if the football team prays for a win? Does it kill you if a pastor blesses a scout father-son diner being served in a public school?
If other don't want to pray, yes, they can simply shut up. What damage is it really causing them?
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Don't change the subject. We were talking about one "representative" of a group of public high school kids leading the whole group, or giving a valedictorian speech or some such. That's totally different from an individual mumbling a prayer for him/her self. I have no objection to that unless it is coercive. Or if it leads to mass hysteria as those girls in a high school near Buffalo NY, who got into weird tics of some kind.
The so-called "respect for other people's views" is nothing but crude justification for silencing those whose views YOU do not like It's disingenuous to the point of downright dishonest. PC )Political Correctness) is nothing but a variant of prior restraint. Free Speech must include 2 things to be free 1) The only restraint is the one the speaker chooses voluntarily to avoid being offensive 2) The Speaker can NOT be muzzled to avoid offending others. PC fails on both counts
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jg69pq$k2k$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
PC? what does that have to do with anything?
And I wish that speakers would always choose voluntarily to avoid being offensive. That would be best. A speech at the end of a school year by a teenager to a bunch of teenagers may need review to comply with the avoidance of being offensive. I can't remember whether my daughter's speech was reviewed, but I was impressed by what she concocted on that occasion.
As to your number 2 - since listening to a valedictorian speech isn't entirely voluntary, I can envision some review. But, as before, I don't know whether it is practiced.
I would say that not allowing a person in their OWN speech to make some sort of religious remark because that somehow establishes a government religion is completely off base. Now if they were leading a prayer, that could be something entirely different.
What demagoguery was that ?
Apparently you can't support you case with ACTUAL EVIDENCE That's not "demagoguery ", that's just bullshit
Maybe you need to read the full tale of the alleged "ethical violations" instead of the leftist propaganda Come back when you have done so and aren't trying to just spin like a cur chasing it's tail
And when was he "drummed out of the house" Feel free to support WITH DATA, another ignorant claim on your part.
Making unsubstantiated allegations and asking others to disprove them is just dishonest and stupid Why do you have a need to prove what you clearly are.
Apparently you're not even smart enough to verify to make sure they have it right There are all sorts of areas where Wiki has been proven wrong, or biased., where small groups forced their "spin" onto content.
He has been cleared of ALL allegations of ethical violations made against him
Not surprised you're clueless about that At least you're consistent
Funny how not knowing doesn't stop you from pontificating
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jg6mu7$70u$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
I am not going to chase edited transcripts of how Newt was honorably discharged from his duties. For me it is sufficient to note that the GOP isn't too happy with his running.
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jg6n7n$8p9$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
And having been cleared of all allegations (if that is indeed the case), the GOP now gladly turn turn their backs on him.
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:wISdnR9DqMR- ILvSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Indeed, that was my point, in somewhat softer language.
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jg6nh6$ad6$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
That type of anecdote (the one you snipped, a valedictorian's address) was what this was about ...
A guy I was in student government with WAY back in college was one of the 1994 Freshman that put Newt in the Speaker's office. He as also one of the leaders of the coup that tossed him out. The GOP did not turn their backs on the Newt as much as he systematically burned every bridge he came across. Think chickens coming home to roost.
No it is *NOT*. You said you would "edit" for content. That's prior restraint.
There is nothing protecting you from speech in a public place. OTOH, you can choose not to listen.
No, they do not. They have a right to make that request but other have no right to shut you up. That *is* censorship (prior restraint).
You're way over the line. That's reckless endangerment. There is absolutely
*no* comparison between this and religious speech (which *IS* protected). I suggest a little remedial civics.HomeOwnersHub website 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.