Support NeoGAF

[rdrr gnr]

Where are you getting this from?

Reality, mainly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

 

[Raist]

A school is a place to learn, not to pray/worship. That kind of stuff has nothing to do there. It's simple as that. The whole "but it's not harmful" arguments are missing the point.

And yes, it does have something to do with the separation of state and church. The fact that this thing is up there can easily and reasonably be seen as a promotion of religion in a school, and a specific one in particular. So either have nothing like that in a school, or something representing all religions (and atheism). The latter is not exactly possible or reasonable to achieve, so take that shit out of the wall.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Replace our heavenly father with Allah and watch the shit storm happen. The fox news headlines would be glorious!

Or Tom Cruise.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Yahweh > Allah

Durr.

 

[Sanky Panky]

This comparison would make more sense if this were simply a matter of preference. Red and blue are just preferences and have no legal/moral value.

But it isn't just a matter of preference. The girl is clearly correct, and the school is clearly wrong. There is a right and wrong here, and the girl is on the right.
.

It has legal value, and the girl was correct on this. It has no moral value because it is inconsecuential. I've been arguing this whole time that it has no moral value or consequence (unlike other violations of the constitution).

Regardless of the specific story here, you really don't understand how the official endorsement of one particular deity over another might prove to be a divisive issue for a school? I mean, we can argue all day about whether or not it's worthy of making a big stink about, but that's kind of beside the point. What I'm getting at is that, whether or not you thing it's worthy of litigation or not, I don't understand how you can suggest that seeing an institution funded by your tax dollars promoting religious dogma is something that you should just shrug your shoulders about and move on.

Except they are not promoting or indoctrinating kids by having a prayer on the wall, especially when they don't even force students to acknowledge it.

If this were an explicitly Muslim prayer no one would be on the side of the school. Get your heads out of your asses.

Yeah clearly the school would be a training ground for terrorists. Indefensible... oh wait, that is what atheists are implying with this one.

 

[Divvy]

Yeah clearly the school would be a training ground for terrorists. Indefensible... oh wait, that is what atheists are implying with this one.

No it's not. They are implying that there would be a lot more fervor in getting rid of it.

It has legal value, and the girl was correct on this. It has no moral value because it is inconsecuential. I've been arguing this whole time that it has no moral value or consequence (unlike other violations of the constitution).

It has no moral value to YOU. That's just your opinion man.

 

[BobsRevenge]

It has legal value, and the girl was correct on this. It has no moral value because it is inconsecuential. I've been arguing this whole time that it has no moral value or consequence (unlike other violations of the constitution).

Except they are not promoting or indoctrinating kids by having a prayer on the wall, especially when they don't even force students to acknowledge it.

Yeah clearly the school would be a training ground for terrorists. Indefensible... oh wait, that is what atheists are implying with this one.

All of your arguments come down to you having an incomplete comprehension of the issue, and it appears you're making little effort to correct that. I'm not sure how valuable your endeavor has been here, but I reckon not much.

I don't mean offense, but this is how I see it.

 

[demon]

Except they are not promoting or indoctrinating kids by having a prayer on the wall, especially when they don't even force students to acknowledge it.

This doesn't make any sense.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Except they are not promoting or indoctrinating kids by having a prayer on the wall, especially when they don't even force students to acknowledge it.

I don't follow. Mind you, again, I'm not trying to engage in some silly subjective "my take vs. your take" argument about whether or not it's worth getting upset about, but how is this not promotion or implicit endorsement? Just as a stupid example, if I hang up a movie poster somewhere, I'm promoting the movie in doing so. This seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[SmokyDave]

Or Tom Cruise.

You mean 'Jesus 2.0'?


You probably won't get that joke for another 2000 years, give or take a decade.

 

[Sky Chief]

I've done it multiple times now and you can look back for it, but here's a hint: you don't understand the first amendment. Your interpretation is wrong.

Hey, do you know what the word "interpretation" means? To say that an interpretation is wrong or right usually makes no sense. You can say something like "the court system generally disagrees with your interpretation" but to say someone else's interpretation is wrong is just as ignorant as saying that only your own religion could possibly be valid. IMO, the entire logic to believe that the First Amendment was meant to RESTRICT religious speech is patently absurd and fundamentally flawed. But, hey, that's just my opinion...

 

[KHarvey16]

Hey, do you know what the word "interpretation" means? To say that an interpretation is wrong or right usually makes no sense. You can say something like "the court system generally disagrees with your interpretation" but to say someone else's interpretation is wrong is just as ignorant as saying that only your own religion could possibly be valid. IMO, the entire logic to believe that the First Amendment was meant to RESTRICT religious speech is patently absurd and fundamentally flawed. But, hey, that's just my opinion...

It doesn't restrict religious speech. This was a school, a government institution funded with public money. It doesn't have rights.

Your understanding and interpretation of the first amendment, and the word interpretation, is wrong.

 

[Sanky Panky]

You continue to display the utter inability to see it from any perspective other than your own. To you, sure, it's pointless. But the world doesn't revolve around you. To you, it doesn't matter, we get it. That doesn't make the fact that it matters to other people wrong.

Aside from the constitutionallity of it (which I'm not debating) all we doing are standing by our opinions. I'm not hoping to turn anybody around, just giving my reasons for defending my perspective. It's fun.

Am I oppressed by the government? Not so much. Am I oppressed by the culture with the apparent support of the government? Obviously, when I'm in areas of the country with generally religious dispositions. Which just happens to be most of the damn thing.

You are protected by the government if people violate your rights or beliefs. The government endorsing the word God does not limit its abilities nor does it create a bias to not uphold its laws.

Does it empower Christians to defend their faith? only when someone is trying to oppress theirs. You don't hear a Christian saying you have to convert because the dollar bill says so!

No it's not. They are implying that there would be a lot more fervor in getting rid of it.

I'm implying that the reaction of christians against muslims is the same reaction of atheists versus Christians.

I don't follow. Mind you, again, I'm not trying to engage in some silly subjective "my take vs. your take" argument about whether or not it's worth getting upset about, but how is this not promotion or implicit endorsement? Just as a stupid example, if I hang up a movie poster somewhere, I'm promoting the movie in doing so. This seems pretty straightforward to me.

Am I forcing you to like or even watch the movie? I would object to that.

 

[BobsRevenge]

You are protected by the government if people violate your rights or beliefs. The government endorsing the word God does not limit its abilities nor does it create a bias to not uphold its laws.

Does it empower Christians to defend their faith? only when someone is trying to oppress theirs. You don't hear a Christian saying you have to convert because the dollar bill says so!

Functionally it does, yes. And that presents a problem. I've already explained why, and your refutation here makes little sense as an argument against what I said.

edit: Let me put it this way, if a group of people from a state-supported ideology believe me to be dishonest because I don't believe in a God, and they are on a jury against me, functionally the state is oppressing me. And that's wrong.

 

[cutmeamango]

I'm sorry, how is someone who is ignorant to the concept of a deity not an atheist?

The only possible way is if you define atheist incorrectly.

Last time I quoted a dictionary, someone called me a cunt, hopefully this time wikipedia sources will avoid name calling:

Nielsen, Kai (2011). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2011-12-06.

"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 9780028657806.

"On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion."

(page 175 in 1967 edition)

If you are ignorant, you are not rejecting anything. As I said, they are both reasonings of a subject. Not a condition.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Am I forcing you to like or even watch the movie? I would object to that.

Well, not necessarily. But that's not what I was arguing. We're agreed that it is promotion, right? Because earlier you argued that the banner didn't constitute promotion of religion, which didn't really make sense to me.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

Except they are not promoting or indoctrinating kids by having a prayer on the wall, especially when they don't even force students to acknowledge it.

Yeah clearly the school would be a training ground for terrorists. Indefensible... oh wait, that is what atheists are implying with this one.

My point was that if the school prayer had "Allah" instead of God in it, it would be clear to people how the school is promoting one religion over another. As it stands, with a Christian majority, nobody questions it - and that is the problem. This is a public school, it should not be advocating or subtly enforcing any religious point of view. If you want to promote religion in school, feel free to attend a private religious school.

All this public school had to do was take the religious stuff out and have a secular banner with the same sentiment and its message would be more fair and universal. But they fought against that - to the point of having to be sued - because they didn't want anyone messing with their agenda. This is how religion poisons everything.

 

[KHarvey16]

Last time I quoted a dictionary, someone called me a cunt, hopefully this time wikipedia sources will avoid name calling:

Nielsen, Kai (2011). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2011-12-06.

Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 9780028657806.
(page 175 in 1967 edition)

If you are ignorant, you are not rejecting anything. As I said, they are both reasonings of a subject. Not a condition.

Theism is a belief in god, a-theism literally means without belief in god. It's just taking a word and adding a prefix, and the two represent a binary system. You can only be one or the other. An atheist may believe no god exists as well but that is not what atheism requires. Those defining atheism as only meaning a rejection or a belief there is no god are technically incorrect, even if they are describing an example of common (mis)usage.

 

[Lothars]

All this public school had to do was take the religious stuff out and have a secular banner with the same sentiment and its message would be more fair and universal. But they fought against that - to the point of having to be sued - because they didn't want anyone messing with their agenda. This is how religion poisons everything.

That's exactly what they should have done because I think the banner overall message is good but I don't agree with you that religion poisons everything.

 

[Tawpgun]

The school should take it down. It shouldn't have been there to begin with.

But honestly, I don't see the point in going through the trouble of sueing for it. I guess she was trying to prove a point.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

Or have someone sing it on school property in Arabic once every day at lunch. Quietly enough not to bother anyone obviously.

lol, considering Obama just signed the the NDAA into law, I wouldn't even joke about doing some shit like that.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Functionally it does, yes. And that presents a problem. I've already explained why, and your refutation here makes little sense as an argument against what I said.

edit: Let me put it this way, if a group of people from a state-supported ideology believe me to be dishonest because I don't believe in a God, and they are on a jury against me, functionally the state is oppressing me. And that's wrong.

Unless the state specifically chose the jury based on their religion, I would see your point. However, you are relying on the judgement of your peers which could be from ANY religion, and it is not the fault of the state. Your peers would not feel more empowered to judge you based on your religion because it says God in the dollar, or there was a prayer mural in the school. I'm not even well versed in how juries deliverate, but I'm sure "We don't trust an atheist" won't fly in court.

All this public school had to do was take the religious stuff out and have a secular banner with the same sentiment and its message would be more fair and universal. But they fought against that - to the point of having to be sued - because they didn't want anyone messing with their agenda. This is how religion poisons everything.

I guess I fail to see this evil agenda, and how the children are now poisoned by the mural.

Since some people might see me as anything more than just voicing and standing by my opinion, there is no point in repeating stuff over and over.

1) I said from the beginning that under the constitution, the mural should be removed

2) The girl is fighting a worthless cause, as the mural is inconsequential, is not oppressive, and does not have a hidden agenda to turn kids into bible thumpers.

3) The state endorsing the word God, does not discriminate against others, and does not oppress/prevent others from liberty of expression and the pursuit of happiness.

These are my opinions, and I stand by them. The facts are that in modern times in our country, the church and state affair has not lead to religious oppression. I'd love to hear arguments otherwise.

 

[Raist]

Last time I quoted a dictionary, someone called me a cunt, hopefully this time wikipedia sources will avoid name calling:

Nielsen, Kai (2011). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2011-12-06.

Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 9780028657806.
(page 175 in 1967 edition)

If you are ignorant, you are not rejecting anything. As I said, they are both reasonings of a subject. Not a condition.

Oh, oh, let's play!

Oxford Dictionary
Atheism
Definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin: ate 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'

 

[KHarvey16]

Unless the state specifically chose the jury based on their religion, I would see your point. However, you are relying on the judgement of your peers which could be from ANY religion, and it is not the fault of the state. Your peers would not feel more empowered to judge you based on your religion because it says God in the dollar, or there was a prayer mural in the school. I'm not even well versed in how juries deliverate, but I'm sure "We don't trust an atheist" will fly with the court.



I guess I fail to see this evil agenda, and how the children are now poisoned by the mural.

Since some people might see me as anything more than just voicing and standing by my opinion, there is no point in repeating stuff over and over.

1) I said from the beginning that under the constitution, the mural should be removed

2) The girl is fighting a worthless cause, as the mural is inconsequential, is not oppressive, and does not have a hidden agenda to turn kids into bible thumpers.

3) The state endorsing the word God, does not discriminate against others, and does not oppress/prevent others from liberty of expression and the pursuit of happiness.

These are my opinions, and I stand by them. The facts are that in modern times in our country, the church and state affair has not lead to religious oppression. I'd love to hear arguments otherwise.

Recognizing the banner should be removed on constitutional grounds is incompatible with arguing the banner was inconsequential. If you agree with the former you cannot agree with the latter. Your position is contradictory.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Unless the state specifically chose the jury based on their religion, I would see your point. However, you are relying on the judgement of your peers which could be from ANY religion, and it is not the fault of the state. Your peers would not feel more empowered to judge you based on your religion because it says God in the dollar, or there was a prayer mural in the school. I'm not even well versed in how juries deliverate, but I'm sure "We don't trust an atheist" will fly with the court.

You're missing a connection and I don't understand why. It's like you're raising it to this metaphysical law debate, when there are important factors in the real world that you are disregarding.

It is wrong for the state to support an ideology that leads people to believe I'm going to hell. I'm not sure I can make it more clear than that.

It is unlawful for them to deliberate on a case I'm involved in based on my religious beliefs, but that sure as shit won't necessarily stop it from happening. Look at how race, gender, and attractiveness factor in. Certain things can't be helped. However, there is a responsibility for the government to not support ideologies that might affect these things.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Recognizing the banner should be removed on constitutional grounds is incompatible with arguing the banner was inconsequential. If you agree with the former you cannot agree with the latter. Your position is contradictory.

I disagree with the decision on moral grounds as I have said. The school did nothing wrong, but a lawyer used a black and white definition of church vs state to bring the banner down.

It is wrong for the state to support an ideology that leads people to believe I'm going to hell. I'm not sure I can make it more clear than that.

It is unlawful for them to deliberate on a case I'm involved in based on my religious beliefs, but that sure as shit won't necessarily stop it from happening. Look at how race, gender, and attractiveness factor in. Certain things can't be helped. However, there is a responsibility for the government to not support ideologies that might affect these things.

Again, the government would NEVER impose the idea of damnation in hell. The Christians crazies will tell you that, and you are of weak belief if you let it affect you emotionally. A prayer or using the word God is not an endorsement of eternal damnation by the government.

So you said that religion, gender, race, and attractiveness factor in a jury's decision. Somehow I don't see a bigot, sexist, racist, shallow person being less so or more so because of what the government does. Ignorance is not endorsed by the constitution. The government isn't even endorsing extreme views at all. Has taken down the banner in the school actually lead to an extreme christian judging you LESS? if anything, a petty act like that would paint you i an even more negative light in their eyes.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

just felt obligated to sue over it?

I have nothing against gay people.. just going to keep voting for people to make sure they can't get legally married in my state...

see it's ok....

If I understand correctly, she didn't sue just because she had nothing better to do with her day. She sued (and won) because the school administration wouldn't remove a sign that was unconstitutional.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I disagree with the decision on moral grounds as I have said. The school did nothing wrong, but a lawyer used a black and white definition of church vs state to bring the banner down.

That's how law works.

And yes, the school did something wrong. Multiple things, actually.

 

[Dude Abides]

I disagree with the decision on moral grounds as I have said. The school did nothing wrong, but a lawyer used a black and white definition of church vs state to bring the banner down.

You don't think it's wrong for public institutions to violate the Constitution, and to then persist in that violation even after it is pointed out to them, pointlessly squandering public resources in the process?

 

[Tawpgun]

The only thing that should be being debated here is whether they should have just removed religious references.

This is a clear cut case. If it was me I might have raised an issue about it but I wouldn't go through the trouble of making such a big deal over a prayer banner. Then again, thats how this shit would grow.

But the constitution is clear on this one, and now I'm seeing gaffer(s) saying thats maybe instead of interpreting the constitution we should spend the effort seeing if the Seperation of Church and State clause is relevant in our society?

First of all, LOL.

Second of all, we've only gotten more secular as time went on. If anything its even more relevant in our society know.

Humanity is on a good path right now. Most secular countries are pretty good, peace loving, etc.

It's Religion or ancient quarrels causing problems now.

 

[cutmeamango]

Theism is a belief in god, a-theism literally means without belief in god. It's just taking a word and adding a prefix, and the two represent a binary system. You can only be one or the other. An atheist may believe no god exists as well but that is not what atheism requires. Those defining atheism as only meaning a rejection or a belief there is no god are technically incorrect, even if they are describing an example of common (mis)usage.

Oh, oh, let's play!

Oxford Dictionary
Atheism
Definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin: ate 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'

Fair enough! (Atheists books topic); They do read a bit weak, don't they?
But I'll just side with Bertrand Russell and Thomas Henry Huxley on this one. And semiotics instead of linguistics (which is a valid take too I suppose).

 

[sajj316]

Good discussion all. It's possible to discuss without taking indirect/direct shots at religion although there have been some in this thread. This is not an issue about Christianity/Religion vs. Atheism. This is an issue of constitutional rights, which had me investigating further into Elk Grove v Newdow and Lemon v Kurtzman which produced the Lemon Test (below).

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

According to this, the mural should be removed. However, as mentioned in previous posts, there have been a lot of inconsistency with how this Test is interpreted (see the results of Judge Roy Moore and compare against Newdow's case against the government regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and the Aronow v. United States

I am Christian but I 100% respect and follow the law of the land

 

[Unhandled Exception]

It's Religion or ancient quarrels causing problems now.

Something something secular bigotry.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Good discussion all. It's possible to discuss without taking indirect/direct shots at religion although there have been some in this thread. This is not an issue about Christianity/Religion vs. Atheism. This is an issue of constitutional rights, which had me investigating further into Elk Grove v Newdow and Lemon v Kurtzman which produced the Lemon Test (below).

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

According to this, the mural should be removed. However, as mentioned in previous posts, there have been a lot of inconsistency with how this Test is interpreted (see the results of Judge Roy Moore and compare against Newdow's case against the government regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and the Aronow v. United States

I am Christian but I 100% respect and follow the law of the land

Respect!

 

[Sanky Panky]

You don't think it's wrong for public institutions to violate the Constitution, and to then persist in that violation even after it is pointed out to them, pointlessly squandering public resources in the process?

A school had a prayer in a wall, and the community (vs a teen girl) wanted to keep it. On paper, it's a violation and I'm not disputing that. It's not a violation of anyone's rights, nor was it wrong on grounds of morality (like other violations can be).

I'm sorry if I don't equate this with public institutions shitting on the constitution in order to convert you to Jesus.

 

[Snakeyes]

I guess the dollar bill is next?

 

[KHarvey16]

A school had a prayer in a wall, and the community (vs a teen girl) wanted to keep it. On paper, it's a violation and I'm not disputing that. It's not a violation of anyone's rights, nor was it wrong on grounds of morality (like other violations can be).

I'm sorry if I don't equate this with public institutions shitting on the constitution in order to convert you to Jesus.

It cannot simultaneously be a violation and yet not a violation of someone's rights. You aren't making any sense whatsoever as you bend over backward to accomadate your need to find fault in this action.

 

[Count Dookkake]

A school had a prayer in a wall, and the community (vs a teen girl) wanted to keep it. On paper, it's a violation and I'm not disputing that. It's not a violation of anyone's rights, nor was it wrong on grounds of morality (like other violations can be).

I'm sorry if I don't equate this with public institutions shitting on the constitution in order to convert you to Jesus.

In Pekin, Illinois, there was a high-school team called The Chinks. The community wanted to keep the name AND the word is not even illegal.

They changed, even without a legal onus to do so.

 

[Dude Abides]

A school had a prayer in a wall, and the community (vs a teen girl) wanted to keep it. On paper, it's a violation and I'm not disputing that. It's not a violation of anyone's rights, nor was it wrong on grounds of morality (like other violations can be).

I'm sorry if I don't equate this with public institutions shitting on the constitution in order to convert you to Jesus.

That sounds like you're saying "No, I do not think it is necessarily wrong for public institutions to violate the Constitution." Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

 

[Sanky Panky]

That sounds like you're saying "No, I do not think it is necessarily wrong for public institutions to violate the Constitution." Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

It cannot simultaneously be a violation and yet not a violation of someone's rights. You aren't making any sense whatsoever as you bend over backward to accomadate your need to find fault in this action.

The banner was removed on technicalities of the law, not because it actually offended or violated someone's rights.

 

[KHarvey16]

The banner was removed on technicalities of the law, not because it actually offended or violated someone's rights.

The first amendment is not a technicality and exists solely to protect rights. Anything that violates the first amendment necessarily violates someone's rights. You're not going to win this one.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

The banner was removed on technicalities of the law, not because it actually offended or violated someone's rights.

Its my right to not have my tax dollars wasted on religious sentiments in a publicly funded school. Its her right to not have to be subjected to anything religiously sanctioned by the staff while attending a publicly funded school.

 

[BobsRevenge]

That sounds like you're saying "No, I do not think it is necessarily wrong for public institutions to violate the Constitution." Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

People should strive to have a higher morality than what is imposed on them, so I think this is necessarily an incorrect statement. That's my opinion, though.

I'd rather discuss if something is defensible on moral grounds than whether or not it is in the constitution. Then if it isn't in there it should be amended if it needs to become law. I would have no problem with a public institution upholding McCain Feingold, even if the Supreme Court told it not to, as a matter of righteous disobedience.

They should be fined for it or something, I suppose, but in the end I wouldn't call it wrong.

I suppose the wikileaks stuff is another example of this.

There is a disturbing subjectivity to it, I admit, but I can't help but to accept that if I'm being intellectually honest.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

The banner was removed on technicalities of the law, not because it actually offended or violated someone's rights.

So... if someone went to that school who was legitimately, sincerely, 100% bothered by that banner, then it'd be okay?

 

[Sanky Panky]

Its my right to not have my tax dollars wasted on religious sentiments in a publicly funded school. Its her right to not have to be subjected to anything religiously sanctioned by the staff while attending a publicly funded school.

A kid made the mural, unless as a tax payer you want a refund for the minutes spent to put it up or dust it off.

And she was not subjected to anything that would oppress her beliefs or rights. If a friend hadn't pointed it out to her, she would have gone about her happy life without a scratch.

So... if someone went to that school who was legitimately, sincerely, 100% bothered by that banner, then it'd be okay?

I'd ask them why. Unless there is some deep trauma, I can't see how anything could be construed as offensive about that mural.

 

[Dude Abides]

People should strive to have a higher morality than what is imposed on them, so I think this is necessarily an incorrect statement. That's my opinion, though.

I'd rather discuss if something is defensible on moral grounds than whether or not it is in the constitution. Then if it isn't in there it should be amended if it needs to become law. I would have no problem with a public institution upholding McCain Feingold, even if the Supreme Court told it not to, as a matter of righteous disobedience.

They should be fined for it or something, I suppose, but in the end I wouldn't call it wrong.

I suppose the wikileaks stuff is another example of this.

There is a disturbing subjectivity to it, I admit, but I can't help but to accept that if I'm being intellectually honest.

I don't think it has to be either/or. You can say "It is always wrong to violate the Constitution" and at the same time say "There are actions that are wrong even though they do not violate the Constitution."

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

Math Teacher: "Oh god, I dropped the chalk."

Student: *gasp* "How dare you. HOW DARE YOU. I AM GOING TO SUE THE GOD OUT OF YOU!!"


This whole thing is petty and embarrassing. I hope she also stops using our currency since it has the word God on it.

 

[Opiate]

The banner was removed on technicalities of the law, not because it actually offended or violated someone's rights.

Can you define a person's "rights" please?

Because from what I can tell, you are explicitly admitting that this school violated the first amendment. Quoting you here:

On paper, it's a violation and I'm not disputing that

To be specific, the first amendment is part of what is know as the Bill of Rights. That's not a name I just made up for it now: the separation of church and state is literally part of what is explicitly known as "The Bill of Rights."

And it isn't just part of the Bill of Rights, it's the very first paragraph of the very first article of the Bill of Rights.

If you are violating the very first paragraph of the very first article of the Bill of Rights, then you are violating someone's rights. I don't feel it can get much clearer than that. I'd honestly struggle to come up with a more clearer, more straightforward example, to be honest.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

The banner was removed on technicalities of the law, not because it actually offended or violated someone's rights.

the "technicality of the law" for which it was removed is based on the violation of rights.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

A kid made the mural, unless as a tax payer you want a refund for the minutes spent to put it up or dust it off.

And she was not subjected to anything that would oppress her beliefs or rights. If a friend hadn't pointed it out to her, she would have gone about her happy life without a scratch.

It doesn't matter who made it when the school staff is the one who refuses to take it down. They clearly supported its presence and therefore were in the wrong. The second part is entirely your opinion and has nothing to do with rights. You're claiming to understand how something made someone else feel and I find it humorous. Anything to defend your faith I guess. Anything to make your faith (of the majority) look persecuted even when you're in the wrong.