View Poll Results: Is the ruling listed correct

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am conservative and I think it is correct

    6 13.64%
  • I am conservative and I think it is wrong

    7 15.91%
  • I am a conservative and I do not know or am abivelant

    1 2.27%
  • I am a liberal and I think it is correct

    16 36.36%
  • I am a liberal and I think it is wrong

    9 20.45%
  • I am a liberal and I do not know or am abilvelant

    5 11.36%
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 123

Thread: Is This Ruling Correct?

  1. #91
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,874
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Largely ambivalent.

    But in this case, was this graduation only being held in this Church, or was this just one venue?
    "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
    -FDR

  2. #92
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Now...I'm not very religious, and going to that extent that you hope they never step foot in such a place seems kind of silly to me, but I don't see it as inherently based in FEAR or some horrible bigoted or intolerant notion.
    Well, we disagree on that. I see all the 'we don't want pictures that have symbols other than what we believe in' as a load of nonsense excuse making. Covering for the fear.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  3. #93
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Really? So when people realize something based on the "put yourself in someone elses shoes, how would you feel? "logic it shows that they're a bigot because it took them looking at it from another direction to realize it?

    They didn't have any issue with it, becuase they're viewing it from the eyes of a christian having to do it in a christian building. However, when they step back and think about it as "Well, what would I feel if it was me being forced to go into a non-christian building, would that bother me?" and realize what it is that they would be requiring of others by saying it's okay, they decide to go against it.

    It's not much different than when someone's yelling about how they want Westboro shut up and then someone points out how, if they act against their speech then the government could act against your own as well, causing them to rethink and change their mind. Sometimes people just aren't viewing an issue from a certain angle, and then putting themselves in the other persons position allows them to get a better view of it and realize that there's a problem.
    Fair enough, I overreacted. Probably because I just read about this lawmaker:

    Louisiana Republican: When I Voted for State Funds to go to Religious Schools, I Didn’t Mean Muslim Ones
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #94
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is simply not how our judicial system works, and never has. Context is always important, and if there is any element of coercion (either against the attendees or the taxpayers) then the government is infringing on First Amendment rights. And a graduation ceremony most definitely applies to both, as it's a common event that most people want to attend.
    Context and how "a reasonable person would behave" are often two entirely different things. Hell...if we were all reasonable then there would be no need for courts. IE one persons reasonableness is another persons insanity. Hence why the courts generally, in matters of the Constitution, go by what the Constitution says or meant and not by what you or I think is reasonable. So yes, they go by context...but not "how a reasonable person would behave".

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No, actually that would not make any sense at all. Because the First Amendment didn't even apply to the states at the time it was ratified (that didn't come until nearly 100 years later). And because public education was rare or nonexistent at the time. And because the people who ratified the First Amendment were not a monolithic entity, and therefore didn't mean to apply it in ANY particular way. Trying to decipher what they would have thought about a church being used for a public school's graduation ceremony is a futile exercise and not particularly relevant to the world in 2012.
    Actually it makes perfect sense. If something else should come up in which the correct interpretation is not sufficient then a new amendment should be made. Not have the original arbritrarily changed because of some nebulous reasoning based upon current events. There is a reason that the FF's made it to where the Constitution could be changed...and why its considered a "living document". From what I read right here you appear to be one of those people that are quite willing to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution just so you can have your way. That path leads to tyranny and rights being applied unequally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The government doesn't need to "shield people from religion" in the sense of restricting the actions of private entities. But it DOES have a responsibility to shield people from religion in its own affairs. The state is spending taxpayer money and the school is holding a public event that most participants will want to attend. Therefore they do have a responsibility to not spend it on anything religious, for the same reason that the state can't outright build a mosque with taxpayer money and open a DMV inside.
    No actually it doesn't. The only responsibility that the government has towards religion is to make no laws against it or prevent others from practicing thier prefered religion. That was the whole ideal behind "seperation of church and state". The state could not make any laws against religion. Ironically the State can make laws based upon religion...example...DOMA. Now yes I know that one court deemed DOMA unconstitional..but it did not do so because DOMA is based on religious grounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm not sure what you think this proves, other than that some courts once had a different interpretation of the First Amendment than they do now (or just didn't enforce it as well). It says nothing about which interpretation is "correct" (whatever that means).
    The point was to show that the 1st amendment was never meant to prevent public entities from being in a church or stop a court room from displaying the 10 Commandments. It was just there to prevent the government from making laws against any religion period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    So in your view, would it be constitutional for teachers in public schools to start preaching Scientology and actively try to convert their students, as long as they didn't force them? What if the school made conversion to Scientology a requirement in order to participate in after-school events, which are entirely optional?
    Preaching yes. Actively trying to convert yes. Both are a form of coercion. But simply having a graduation ceremony in a church (no matter the denomination) then yeah...I have no problem with it. Simply having the 10 commandments in a courtroom...I have no problem with it. Even if those 10 commandments were based in Islam or Scientology I wouldn't care.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The problem is that when you put people in a religious atmosphere like that, it's essentially an advertisement for that religion.
    So what? Are people such sheep that they can't think for themselves? Again, its freedom OF religion...not freedom FROM religion. It makes a HUGE difference in interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I don't really have a problem with it since it's on individual people's graves. If Arlington Cemetery had religious iconography that weren't for specific people or groups of people (and I don't know if they do), I'd be more likely to have a problem with that. Although they probably get more leeway than public schools, since it's an historical site and monument.
    But it is still provided by the government and is on government property. Is that not a form of advertisement? Arlington is after all open to anyone. Along with the other cemetaries for our soldiers.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #95
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,793

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    I dont see how anybody thinks it was the wrong ruling, a church is sacred ground to RELIGION period. Its protected by special laws that deem it so. How on one hand do we lawfully allow the church to discriminate against anybody they want and on the other hand force people to go to the same place for a graduation? thats plan stupid and why its should not be allowed.

    Its wrong.

    not to mention its not for you to decided, simply entering the building of another/different religion's place of worship maybe sinning to someone so thats the end of the discussion, you would be infringing on their rights.

    Its no over blown PC per the law its proper and what is right.

    What if:
    it was a devil worshiping church
    a strip club
    a hall owned by the KKK with its symbols and literature on the walls and front
    a hall inside an abortion clinic with its adds and name on the walls and front
    a hall of an anti-gay org, anti-woman org

    now some of my examples have nothing to do with the constitution or religion but I was just using them to show how people may get mad, upset, uncomfortable real quick.

    its the totally wrong venue for such matters and the court ruled properly on this no brainier.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #96
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Context and how "a reasonable person would behave" are often two entirely different things. Hell...if we were all reasonable then there would be no need for courts. IE one persons reasonableness is another persons insanity. Hence why the courts generally, in matters of the Constitution, go by what the Constitution says or meant and not by what you or I think is reasonable. So yes, they go by context...but not "how a reasonable person would behave".
    If it's in the context of an event in which a person is technically able to leave or not attend, but few people would choose that option because they want to participate, then it's not really a free choice and there's still a captive audience. And in any case, the taxpayers presumably paid for the graduation ceremony.

    Actually it makes perfect sense. If something else should come up in which the correct interpretation is not sufficient then a new amendment should be made. Not have the original arbritrarily changed because of some nebulous reasoning based upon current events. There is a reason that the FF's made it to where the Constitution could be changed...and why its considered a "living document".
    The fact that the Constitution has only been amended 15 times in the last 200 years (only 6 of which were major changes, and 3 of those were done at gunpoint) should tell you something about how well our amendment process works.

    From what I read right here you appear to be one of those people that are quite willing to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution just so you can have your way. That path leads to tyranny and rights being applied unequally.
    The Constitution has been interpreted in ways that the framers could never have envisioned (and probably wouldn't have wanted within the context of their own society) since at least 1803. Yet here we are 200+ years later, and we aren't quite North Korea.

    No actually it doesn't. The only responsibility that the government has towards religion is to make no laws against it or prevent others from practicing thier prefered religion. That was the whole ideal behind "seperation of church and state". The state could not make any laws against religion.
    So if the government wanted to spend 20% of our GDP tithing to a particular church, would you have any constitutional objection?

    The point was to show that the 1st amendment was never meant to prevent public entities from being in a church or stop a court room from displaying the 10 Commandments. It was just there to prevent the government from making laws against any religion period.
    But there has never been a point in our nation's history when simultaneously both the 1st amendment was applied as its authors would have intended, and when the 14th amendment was applied as ITS authors would have intended. So even if one were to care about such things, the fact that schools were allowed more leeway with churches in the past has no real bearing on the "original intent" of such amendments.

    Ironically the State can make laws based upon religion...example...DOMA. Now yes I know that one court deemed DOMA unconstitional..but it did not do so because DOMA is based on religious grounds.
    Probably because nothing about God or religion appears in the text of the law, to my knowledge.

    So what? Are people such sheep that they can't think for themselves? Again, its freedom OF religion...not freedom FROM religion. It makes a HUGE difference in interpretation.
    Yes, people are sheep, and yes, it's an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of religion (particularly if the taxpayers paid for the ceremony) unless there's a damn good reason such as a lack of available secular venues.

    But it is still provided by the government and is on government property. Is that not a form of advertisement? Arlington is after all open to anyone. Along with the other cemetaries for our soldiers.
    Again I'd go back to the question of whether there is any legitimate government purpose for the religious iconography. In the case of a graduation ceremony, the public purpose might be that it was the only available venue. In the case of Arlington, it's to honor specific soldiers or groups of soldiers in accordance with their wishes, and to serve as an historical site. Unless there is some legitimate purpose, the government has no business promoting ANY religious iconography.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-31-12 at 05:46 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #97
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Fair enough, I overreacted. Probably because I just read about this lawmaker:

    Louisiana Republican: When I Voted for State Funds to go to Religious Schools, I Didn’t Mean Muslim Ones
    Yeah. See I have two distinctly different feelings between people who go:

    "I want this, but only for my [x]. I'm against it for their [x], but still want it for my [x]"

    and people who go

    "I wanted this for my [x], but I realize I wouldn't want it for their [x], which makes me understand why I can't/shouldn't have it for my [x] so I no longer want it"

    The lawmaker seems to have wanted something, didn't think it all the way through, and is getting pissy with what happened with it. I see that different from what some people expressed in this thread.

  8. #98
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,793

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Fair enough, I overreacted. Probably because I just read about this lawmaker:

    Louisiana Republican: When I Voted for State Funds to go to Religious Schools, I Didn’t Mean Muslim Ones

    wow I read this and theres only one conclusion to come to.

    Valarie Hodges is a bat ****, ape crazy, bigoted, selfish, hypocritical moron and she is one of many of the embarrassments of our judicial system/office holders. She even says the religion of our founders? Wow does she even have a clue what she is talking about. This womens urine needs checked every hour on the hour and get her a CAT scan ASAP. LMAO
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #99
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Well, we disagree on that. I see all the 'we don't want pictures that have symbols other than what we believe in' as a load of nonsense excuse making. Covering for the fear.
    No not fear....In order to understand the reason behind the first amendment all one has to do is look to Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists 1802 where Jefferson speaks of a "Wall of Separation" between the feral government and religion. This was the thought process and framework for the First Amendment.




    Background

    "Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature ó as "favors granted."

    Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    Jefferson's reply



    To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

    Gentlemen

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, 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 eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

    [Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."]
    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

    Th Jefferson
    Jan. 1. 1802.

    Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

  10. #100
    Student Boring Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicago Suburb
    Last Seen
    10-01-13 @ 06:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    230

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    The ruling is ludicrous. Soon schools won't be able to rent out their buildings to churches on Sundays either (something quite common in my area). What the owner of a building uses the building for and what the school used the building for are completely separate, so unless the school subjected the graduating students to a religious sermon no unconstitutional actions were taken.

    7 years ago when I was in the high school symphonic band the school building wasn't finished yet, so we had to find another location in which to perform our fall concert. A local church offered us their auditorium for free if the marching band agreed to perform at a church event. Of course the school agreed. Not a single person complained about separation of church and state or any other B.S. We needed an auditorium, they had one, we used it. It doesn't matter that it was a church. Sure, it would have been a problem if we had to sit through a sermon beforehand, but the event we played at was mostly just a party.

    These situations are, from all available evidence, exactly the same. No one in my 2400 student public school seemed to mind. Why is it an issue now?
    "The enemy isnít conservatism. The enemy isnít liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t."

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •