Californians to Ban Christian Symbols From Public View

[_ldsfaqs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmttUXUGfI

One guy even goes into great detail how he's for the ban, thus this is not a joke.

[_Droopy]

This has a history going back decades, of course. Here's just one over the past several years, also from the same Western European social democratic corporatist welfare sate known as "California."

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... /912219968

Poor, poor atheists. So fragile. So tender in their sensibilities. The rape of the First Amendment regarding the Establishment Clause and the wholly extra-constitutional and ahistorical affixing of a brazenly fictitious "separation of church and state," defined as "separation of religion qua religion from the public square" should have been stopped dead in its tracks long ago. Unfortunately, the sheeple are also, many of them, at the same time, wolves nipping and tearing at the constitution themselves and who could not have provided an effective defense of that document had they been aware or educated enough to do so.

[_Darth J]

This has a history going back decades, of course. Here's just one over the past several years, also from the same Western European social democratic corporatist welfare sate known as "California."

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... /912219968

Poor, poor atheists. So fragile. So tender in their sensibilities. The rape of the First Amendment regarding the Establishment Clause and the wholly extra-constitutional and ahistorical affixing of a brazenly fictitious "separation of church and state," defined as "separation of religion qua religion from the public square" should have been stopped dead in its tracks long ago. Unfortunately, the sheeple are also, many of them, at the same time, wolves nipping and tearing at the constitution themselves and who could not have provided an effective defense of that document had they been aware or educated enough to do so.

Droopy, let's say a high school whose student body is overwhelmingly Christian allows prayers at the start of football games that are led by students and given by students. The prayers end up being entirely Christian prayers. A tiny minority of the student body is offended by this, claiming that it imposes Christianity on them and causes them to be treated as outcasts by other students. Would it be right for one or two students to have a federal judge prohibit the school from allowing these prayers because it is offensive to those one or two students and imposes Christian religious beliefs on them? I say yes, because it would violate the Establishment Clause.

Your opinion?

[_ldsfaqs]

Droopy, let's say a high school whose student body is overwhelmingly Christian allows prayers at the start of football games that are led by students and given by students. The prayers end up being entirely Christian prayers. A tiny minority of the student body is offended by this, claiming that it imposes Christianity on them and causes them to be treated as outcasts by other students. Would it be right for one or two students to have a federal judge prohibit the school from allowing these prayers because it is offensive to those one or two students and imposes Christian religious beliefs on them? I say yes, because it would violate the Establishment Clause.

Your opinion?

You start with a straw-man as usual....

In a truly pluralistic society that is "tolerant" of each other as human beings, those "minorities" would be equally represented as long as the values promoted were within public human decency. In other words, any individual of religion or no religion can reasonably be represented by their having prayer AND/or a moment of silence if they don't believe in prayer to represent their value systems.

Further, since when did someone "being offended" equal actual offense under law or reason?
Public display of belief is not the same thing as "imposing" either.
YOU being intolerant and not wanting to "hear" or "see" religious belief is not them imposing on others.

More so, this never was a problem for atheists before until liberals came along. And people in other religions were still generally represented. For example, sometimes a Jew would pray, sometimes a Catholic, a Protestant, etc.

Atheists have never been considered "outcasts". Kids that grow up together tolerate each others differences. Only liberals and the intolerant have made this into a problem.

And as to the Establishment clause, the state is not "establishing" religion, the state is allowing FREEDOM, the free exercise thereof. And only involves itself to keep fairness and order. PERIOD.

[_Darth J]

Droopy, let's say a high school whose student body is overwhelmingly Christian allows prayers at the start of football games that are led by students and given by students. The prayers end up being entirely Christian prayers. A tiny minority of the student body is offended by this, claiming that it imposes Christianity on them and causes them to be treated as outcasts by other students. Would it be right for one or two students to have a federal judge prohibit the school from allowing these prayers because it is offensive to those one or two students and imposes Christian religious beliefs on them? I say yes, because it would violate the Establishment Clause.

Your opinion?

You start with a straw-man as usual....

In a truly pluralistic society that is "tolerant" of each other as human beings, those "minorities" would be equally represented as long as the values promoted were within public human decency. In other words, any individual of religion or no religion can reasonably be represented by their having prayer AND/or a moment of silence if they don't believe in prayer to represent their value systems.

Further, since when did someone "being offended" equal actual offense under law or reason?
Public display of belief is not the same thing as "imposing" either.
YOU being intolerant and not wanting to "hear" or "see" religious belief is not them imposing on others.

More so, this never was a problem for atheists before until liberals came along. And people in other religions were still generally represented. For example, sometimes a Jew would pray, sometimes a Catholic, a Protestant, etc.

Atheists have never been considered "outcasts". Kids that grow up together tolerate each others differences. Only liberals and the intolerant have made this into a problem.

And as to the Establishment clause, the state is not "establishing" religion, the state is allowing FREEDOM, the free exercise thereof. And only involves itself to keep fairness and order. PERIOD.

All right, so given that my hypothetical is a straw man, what should be the outcome if it ever did happen in real life?

[_Bret Ripley]

You start with a straw-man as usual....

[_Analytics]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmttUXUGfI

One guy even goes into great detail how he's for the ban, thus this is not a joke.

This is a video of a Christian asking strangers to sign a petition that takes away the first-amendment right of Christians. And in some clips he busts out laughing in the middle of his pitch. And the amendment is going to be successful. And it is not a joke. Got it.

[_Darth J]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmttUXUGfI

One guy even goes into great detail how he's for the ban, thus this is not a joke.

by the way, this is obviously a joke. Maybe you should have looked at who "Mark Dice" is. The guy is a satirist. He started laughing at himself a couple of times.

This video is the same idea as when Penn and Teller sent someone to an Earth Day rally with a petition to ban "di-hydrogen monoxide." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

But I don't want to suggest you're obtuse or anything like that, so back to my hypothetical, for ldsfaqs, Droopy, or any of our other lovers of the Constitution:

Let's say a high school whose student body is overwhelmingly Christian allows prayers at the start of football games that are led by students and given by students. The prayers end up being entirely Christian prayers. A tiny minority of the student body is offended by this, claiming that it imposes Christianity on them and causes them to be treated as outcasts by other students. Would it be right for one or two students to have a federal judge prohibit the school from allowing these prayers because it is offensive to those one or two students and imposes Christian religious beliefs on them? I say yes, because it would violate the Establishment Clause.

Your opinion?

[Guest]

All right, so given that my hypothetical is a straw man, what should be the outcome if it ever did happen in real life?

1. If they are religious give them opportunity to say a prayer once in a while to equally represent their values as students.

2. If they are Atheist, tell them we will sometimes have a moment of silence to represent their views in "nothing".

3. If they still don't like it, give them a class on Freedom and equal rights and what true tolerance of one another actually means.

And if he still doesn't like it, then too bad. Sometimes in this world there are things we don't like, but we don't PERIOD infringe on the rights of "others" simply because we don't like them or what they do. Living in a pluralistic and fair society everyone's rights should be respected. We don't silence people simply because we don't like the message they may speak.

Silencing people from saying prayers would be more intolerant than you feeling your ears were being infringed upon by having to hear something you don't want to hear. Some people don't like Football or spending money on football, should football not exist because some people don't like it and don't want to see it? Some people may not like some players, or the other team, or the coach, should those people be banned simply because some people are "offended" by them? Should gays not be in your school because you don't want to see them, or listen to them talk in their "gay" way?

Tolerance is a two way street.... If you need respect, people should try to give it, but you should give it also.

4. If some intolerance at the school is occurring by the students themselves, then the students need to have a class on tolerance.

[_ldsfaqs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmttUXUGfI

One guy even goes into great detail how he's for the ban, thus this is not a joke.

This is a video of a Christian asking strangers to sign a petition that takes away the first-amendment right of Christians. And in some clips he busts out laughing in the middle of his pitch. And the amendment is going to be successful. And it is not a joke. Got it.

1. He's not a Christian.

2. What was not a joke is that most people signing it didn't think it was a joke, and even BELIEVED IN IT.
I never said it was a "true" survey.

As usual, anti-mormons and liberals can't tell the truth about anything.