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 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 123

Thread: Is This Ruling Correct?

  1. #41
    Advisor
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 06:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    497

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    WTF? The government needs to stay neutral on matters of religion to avoid needlessly pissing people off and wasting government money in reparations and stupid lawsuits. Is it really all that ****ing hard to keep your raging Jesus stiffies in your pants while acting with official government authority?

  2. #42
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,198

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    I think the ruling was correct.

    First of all, if this was the first time the graduation was held there, what happened to the place(s) it was held in previous years?

    Secondly, I have trouble believing some of the "it's just a building" people would feel the same way if something inappropriate happened in "God's House" or "House of Worship".

    Lastly, schools have used not attending a graduation ceremony as a punishment for kids when they act out on the last day of school. The "don't like it, don't go" attitude seems like a punishment for not wanting to attend a house of worship. You have a right to not be coerced into attending a church. Since public funds pay for the ceremony, a church should not be the place for the ceremony.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  3. #43
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Lemon Test time. Remember, it has to satisfy all three criteria to pass.

    I'm guessing they were just looking for a venue at a reasonable cost? If so, Pass.

    That would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. But if religion is advanced as a byproduct of the ceremony, and not the primary goal, then Pass.

    This is probably going to be the biggest question of the three. What are the conditions of holding the ceremony in the church? Will ministers be speaking at all during the ceremony? Will any religious literature be available? Etc. If any of that happens, Fail. Otherwise, we'll talk.
    Good reading of it. Had the pamplets and individuals prostilitizing on the way in not occured, even without the covering up of every symbol, I would've likely sided with the notion that it was okay. Those things however push it over the top for me.

    Also, I don't quite get the "I wouldn't want to see my kid graduating under the symbols of another religion, so I understand why people wouldn't want to possibly have their kids graduating under the symbols of a religion different then their own, so even though I don't personally have an issue with my kid graduating in a church I understand why that would be problematic in general and am in favor of not allowing it" is "religious intolerance". I would think it was religious intolerance if the people were going "Yeah! Have it in a church, just not in a damned mosque". But it seems more the notion of their kid graduating in a place that isn't part of their religion, and understanding the notion of how that could be a problem for people. I think MarineTP was strawmanned a bit too with the insinuation that he thinks all muslims are terrorists. He suggested no such thing, but rather made it clear he'd simply rather not see the symbols of another religion in the backdrop of his son's graduation. I fully get that, as much as I'd fully get a Jew perhaps not wanting to have the cross in the background of their childs graduation.

  4. #44
    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
    Good reading of it. Had the pamplets and individuals prostilitizing on the way in not occured, even without the covering up of every symbol, I would've likely sided with the notion that it was okay. Those things however push it over the top for me.
    Where did it say there were people prostilitizing on the way in? As to pamphlets and bibles being in the pews, so what. It seems the court based it on people seeing religious symbols and items. As has been said before, nobody has a right to freedom FROM religion. It just simply does not exist. This is all knee jerk overreacting from intolerant people.

    Next thing you know people will be suing to have churches remove their 'symbols' from outside of their buildings because someones kid walks down that street. Stupidity, pure and simple.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  5. #45
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Where did it say there were people prostilitizing on the way in? As to pamphlets and bibles being in the pews, so what. It seems the court based it on people seeing religious symbols and items. As has been said before, nobody has a right to freedom FROM religion. It just simply does not exist. This is all knee jerk overreacting from intolerant people.

    Next thing you know people will be suing to have churches remove their 'symbols' from outside of their buildings because someones kid walks down that street. Stupidity, pure and simple.
    From the OP it was stated that:

    religious pamphlets on middle school and high school ministries
    See the OP, post #36, and post #40 for the information

    As shown in post #40:

    one that among other things featured staffed information booths laden with religious literature and banners with appeals for children to join “school ministries”
    This is not simply having religious items in view of people. This isn't like having the normal, every day items in the pews remain or refusing to cover the Cross...both of which I would fully understand (The latter more than the former). This is the church actively utilizing this graduation ceremony as a means to prostilitize, educate, and recruit for their religion through methods aimed specifically at school aged individuals. While you do not have freedom FROM religion...you do have freedom from the state taking action that specifically leads to your children being exposed to additional religious recruitment. Additionally, because the school was using the church for its graduation ceremony and the church was using the graduation ceremony as a means of advertising their religious views, I agree that it presents a situation where it gives the appearance of state sponsorship to said advertisement becuase of the seemingly joint venture.

    Had this simply been a graduation using a church with the Church...without the church actively engaging in prostilitizing and advertisement of it's message....I would suggest it was acceptable, albiet perhaps a bit ill concieved. However, because the church utilized the graduations as a means of gaining an audience that they could then preach and reach out to with literature and messages specifically aimed at the school aged kids, then I agree that it traversed into the realm of a violation of the 1st amendment as it gave the reasonable appearance of state sponsorship of a religion.
    Last edited by Zyphlin; 07-31-12 at 11:56 AM. Reason: edited out the paragraph I ended up rewriting

  6. #46
    Sage
    Lovebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,885

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Ruling is zealotry, pure and simple.

    Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    No one is telling anyone to prefer one religion over another, or anything else.

  7. #47
    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
    From the OP it was stated that:
    You are making a lot of assumptions. It doesn't say if those 'pamphlets' were normally there or not. Based on my experience, that sort of thing is normally out and visible in most churches.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,040

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    In my community, we cast our votes in a church. I certainly do not feel I am the victim of religious indoctrination while I am voting. If that is permissible, why not a high school graduation?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #49
    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 CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Ummm... Kandahar... opting out of a graduation ceremony is neither impractical or undesirable. Attending is completely subjective and has no bearing on whether someone graduates or not.
    To many people it *is* undesirable to not attend their graduation ceremony, as evidenced by the large number of people who normally choose to attend such events. To illustrate this point, consider the following situation: A football coach at a public school leads his students in an Islamic prayer at the beginning of a game. Do you think this is OK? After all, they can choose to quit the team; their attendance is completely optional. I think most of us would agree that this is still a captive audience, even if attendance is not strictly compulsory.

    In any case, there's also the issue that the taxpayers presumably footed the bill for the graduation ceremony. And taxpayer money generally cannot be spent on promoting a religion.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-31-12 at 11:39 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #50
    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
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Incorrect, sir. The courts generally look at laws in the context of how a reasonable person would behave.
    When it comes to criminal cases yes. When it comes to whether something is Constitutional however they are not suppose to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That doesn't make any sense. How else could you possibly apply the law? It is you who is arguing that the courts are mistaken in their longstanding interpretation of the 1st amendment...so it seems to me that this is PRECISELY what you "personally believe of how a law should be applied," which by your own logic should have no bearing on the law. Or were you just referring to what OTHER people personally believe, because YOUR personal beliefs on how the law should be applied are somehow special?
    How about base it off of what they meant when they made the law and not on someone's opinion 200+ years later? After all wouldn't it make sense to apply a law in the way that it was meant to be applied and not how someone 200+ years later thinks it should be applied?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I mean, if you want to argue that the courts have decided church-and-state cases incorrectly for the past several decades, I'm willing to hear that argument...but don't tell me that your opinions are the only valid ones (ESPECIALLY when your interpretation is not the judicial consensus), as I'll just roll my eyes.
    And that is the arguement I am presenting. There's plenty of evidence that those that wrote the 1st amendment had no intention of shielding people from religion. Just in shielding religion itself. No matter the religion. Otherwise no school would have ever been held in a church setting. No courtroom would have had the 10 Commandments from the get go. I could prolly come up with more, those are just off the top of my head.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Well, you were the one that asked me to show you where it said no government entity could promote a religion. If you already know the answer and you're just going to get annoyed hearing it again, maybe you shouldn't ask the question in the first place.
    But that is not where it says that a government entity could not promote religion. It just says that the rights in the BoR must apply to State governments as well as the Federal government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then we agree that the limitations on state power found in the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment also apply to schools.
    When those limitations are applied correctly yes. Ex: No school can force someone to follow a particular religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then what was the purpose of holding the graduation ceremony in a church? Like I said in my original post in this thread, I'm OK with it if it served some legitimate purpose (such as a lack of available secular venues)...but otherwise it serves as a completely unnecessary way of putting public school students (and their families) in an environment in which they may not be comfortable. And you are wrong about a "captive audience"; it doesn't necessarily mean that they are literally unable to leave or that they are required to attend. It can apply to any situation where opting out is impractical or undesirable.
    Why not hold it in a church? What is inherrently wrong with such a venue? So what if it makes some people uncomfortable. Last I knew there was no right to be free from uncomfortable situations. So long as they are not forced to attend an actual religious ceremony then I see no problem with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Those crosses are on individual people's graves and are meant to honor them personally. If you have a loved one buried in Arlington, you can use a religious symbol on their grave if you want, or no symbol at all. If Arlington Cemetery was regularly advertising or cheerleading for a specific religion, that would be a problem.
    And all of it is provided free of charge from and by the government.
    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

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •