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 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 123

Thread: Is This Ruling Correct?

  1. #81
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    ...I fail to see why holding a graduation in a mosque would be a big deal. Again, if you're just renting out the building for your own private uses, if there are no religious ceremonies, observances, or procedures required, then what the hell is the problem?
    I understand MTP's point...not in a constitutional sense but in a general sense.

    If I'm deeply Christian, and my son's graduating, I don't want to have the memory of his graduation either mentally or with pictures being littered with the holy symbols of a religion that isn't his own because they are symbols that don't represent or apply to him being tied to a major event. I can understand the same way if a Buddist or a Muslim or such would rather not have it in a Church for that same reason.

    On a completely different level but analogy...I'd be annoyed and bothered if my son's graduation was done at say, some place with Cowboy's logos all over the place, because I wouldn't want to take pictures of his graduation with a giant Cowboys hat being immortalized in that picture of him for all time.

    That's not saying I agree necessarily that for that reason it should be unconstitutional....just that I fully understand why someone would possibly not want to see their kid's graduation occur in a place with religious symbols that are not their own prominently displayed all over.

  2. #82
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I know this, my father is a pastor and the church he is the pastor of is also a voting site. They don't do this and I would have a problem if they did. I think it's a bad ruling though to ban churches from hosting graduations because there may be a cross or hymnal visible and then to say that merely having these things on the premises somehow violates the constitution.
    That's not what happened though. In this case it was banned because additional things, such as the manned booths I spoke about, were enough to give forth the impression that the state was promoting a religion. Since this prevoius post was missed I thought I'd repost it again:

    Quote Originally Posted by Connery View Post
    The ruling was correct as far as I am concerned. To allow this would be to ignore the 1st and 14th Amendments and to allow this would act to endorse a religion in contravention to the aforementioned amendments and established law.


    The facts according to the case include: "The first time Central held its graduation in the sanctuary, the cross was covered, apparently by accident. During subsequent graduations, the Church refused Superintendent Gibson’s requests to veil the cross, in keeping with a general Church policy against covering its permanent religious displays. The Church did agree, however, to remove any non-permanent religious symbols from the dais. The chapel used by Central for its senior honors night also contains a cross.

    During the ceremonies, “graduating seniors . . . sit down in the front, center rows of pews of the [sanctuary’s] main level.” Guests sit in the other pews. The parties agree that “Bibles and hymnal books remain in all the pews,” as do a “yellow ‘Scribble Card for God’s Little Lambs,’ a pencil, a donation envelope entitled, ‘Home Harvest Horizon: offering to the work of Christ,’ ” and other religious literature. There is no evidence that any of these materials were placed in the pews specifically for the graduation ceremonies."

    Finally, the court ruled: "conducting a public school graduation ceremony in a church—one that among other things featured staffed information booths laden with religious literature and banners with appeals for children to join “school ministries”—runs afoul of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause....We conclude that the practice of holding high school graduation ceremonies in the Elmbrook Church sanctuary conveys an impermissible message of endorsement. Under the circumstances here, the message of endorsement carried an impermissible aspect of coercion, and the practice has had the unfortunate side effect of fostering the very divisiveness that the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent."

    http://www.au.org/files/2012-07-23%2...0en%20banc.pdf
    Note this part of the decision:

    Before advancing the reasoning behind our decision, it
    is important to note the limited scope of this opinion.
    The ruling should not be construed as a broad statement
    about the propriety of governmental use of church-owned
    facilities
    . Rather, the holding is a narrowly focused one,
    as it must be under our Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.

  3. #83
    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
    Where did he say Fear?
    What other reason is there behind it? Someone firm in their own faith doesn't get bothered by stepping into a building used by a different faith. Someone firm in their own faith has no problem witnessing and learning about other faiths. So, IMO, to deny your kid from setting foot inside such a place must be based in some sort of fear, or irrational thought.

    Tessa's post reminded me that this summer, in preparation for a literature class this next school year, my son had to read a good portion of the bible. Yes, this is in a public school. They will be studying that and a few other classic works, as pure literature. I have no problem with that.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  4. #84
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    That's not what happened though. In this case it was banned because additional things, such as the manned booths I spoke about, were enough to give forth the impression that the state was promoting a religion. Since this prevoius post was missed I thought I'd repost it again:
    Special Thanks for this SCOTUS ruling. Not much new under the sun, is there? They should've known better.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  5. #85
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    What other reason is there behind it?
    The desire for a memorable childhood event to occur in a place that is either neutral or in line with that child's principles and faith rather than one that runs askew to it?

    It doesn't seem that MTP thinks somehting horrible is going to ecome of his son if he goes into a mosque or it's some kind of danger to him...but rather that simply he'd not want that moment of his son's life happening with a Star and Crescent in the background. His son is Christian, he believes in the Christian God and the bible as their particular interpretation of it goes, and as such see's no reason why he needs to be in the building of another persons faith.

    I imagine many feel the same way about having it in a church, and such is perfectly understandable. That doesn't mean they "FEAR" christians...it simply means they don't want to have their children forced / coerced into a place that is religious in nature that is different than their own by the choice of the government.

    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.

  6. #86
    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
    Wait...

    Are you suggesting that those who didn't want their kid to graduate within a church to ALSO be bigotted?
    I'm suggesting that people who have no problem with holding graduation in a church, until it's pointed out to them that other religions would also benefit from such a policy, are bigots. I don't see why it's that hard to empathize with non-Christians not wanting a governmental function being in a church. People are remarkably quick to impose their own religious views on others until the shoe is on the other foot.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-31-12 at 05:15 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #87
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    That's not what happened though. In this case it was banned because additional things, such as the manned booths I spoke about, were enough to give forth the impression that the state was promoting a religion. Since this prevoius post was missed I thought I'd repost it again:

    Thank you, Zyphlin...

  8. #88
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I understand MTP's point...not in a constitutional sense but in a general sense.

    If I'm deeply Christian, and my son's graduating, I don't want to have the memory of his graduation either mentally or with pictures being littered with the holy symbols of a religion that isn't his own because they are symbols that don't represent or apply to him being tied to a major event. I can understand the same way if a Buddist or a Muslim or such would rather not have it in a Church for that same reason.

    On a completely different level but analogy...I'd be annoyed and bothered if my son's graduation was done at say, some place with Cowboy's logos all over the place, because I wouldn't want to take pictures of his graduation with a giant Cowboys hat being immortalized in that picture of him for all time.

    That's not saying I agree necessarily that for that reason it should be unconstitutional....just that I fully understand why someone would possibly not want to see their kid's graduation occur in a place with religious symbols that are not their own prominently displayed all over.
    Zyph, I'm going to PM you a video that will make you crack the eff up.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  9. #89
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,964

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm suggesting that people who have no problem with holding graduation in a church, until it's pointed out to them that other "unacceptable" religions like Islam would also benefit from such a policy, are bigots.
    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.

  10. #90
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: Is This Ruling Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    That's not what happened though. In this case it was banned because additional things, such as the manned booths I spoke about, were enough to give forth the impression that the state was promoting a religion. Since this prevoius post was missed I thought I'd repost it again:



    Note this part of the decision:
    If they were promoting a religion with manned booths then I support the ruling, I had only read the quoted text in the OP. My dad told me part of the agreement is that no one can physically promote any religious function and that no church sponsored religious activity can happen within 100 feet of the property. Having a physically manned booth would violate this. However, having to cover crosses or other things isn't necessary.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •