Californians to Ban Christian Symbols From Public View

[_ldsfaqs]

Darth J, see my two posts above.....

As to your example of Penn and Teller, that's not an accurate example.

This is some guy on the street with no "implications" or ignorant possibilities otherwise to deceive the people signing. He tells them what they are signing and what it's for, and they go right ahead and do it, some even going off on how they love it.

Thus, there is no way you can compare the two.

[_Darth J]

Darth J, see my two posts above.....

As to your example of Penn and Teller, that's not an accurate example.

This is some guy on the street with no "implications" or ignorant possibilities otherwise to deceive the people signing. He tells them what they are signing and what it's for, and they go right ahead and do it, some even going off on how they love it.

Thus, there is no way you can compare the two.

He is trying to prove the same point: that you can get people to sign ludicrous petitions that they don't really think through.

I never said it was a "true" survey.

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

[Guest]

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.

That's very interesting, ldsfaqs. Because my hypothetical is not a hypothetical, but instead is the factual scenario in a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 US 290 (2000).

And guess what? One of the plaintiffs was a Mormon.

Respondents [the plaintiffs in the civil rights lawsuit, against whom the school district was appealing to the Supreme Court] are two sets of current or former students and their respective mothers. One family is Mormon and the other is Catholic. The District Court permitted respondents (Does) to litigate anonymously to protect them from intimidation or harassment.

Id. at 294. ("Id." means I am quoting from a page in the decision.)

Granting only one student access to the stage at a time does not, of course, necessarily preclude a finding that a school has created a limited public forum. Here, however, Santa Fe's student election system ensures that only those messages deemed "appropriate" under the District's policy may be delivered. That is, the majoritarian process implemented by the District guarantees, by definition, that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced.

Recently, in Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217 (2000), we explained why student elections that determine, by majority vote, which expressive activities shall receive or not receive school benefits are constitutionally problematic:

"To the extent the referendum substitutes majority determinations for viewpoint neutrality it would undermine the constitutional protection the program requires. The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is that minority views are treated with the same respect as are majority views. Access to a public forum, for instance, does not depend upon majoritarian consent. That principle is controlling here." Id., at 235.

Id. at 303-04.

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherants "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherants that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." Lynch, 465 U. S., at 688 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The delivery of such a message—over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer—is not properly characterized as "private" speech.

Id. at 309-10.

Isn't it funny that here I am supporting the rights of a Mormon family not to have their religious beliefs treated as less important or worthy of expression by a non-Mormon majority, while you are in favor of the majority imposing its religious views on Mormons?

And guess who dissented in this case? Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist: the conservative justices. How does it make you feel that the conservative justices concluded that a Christian majority should be allowed to impose their religious viewpoint on Mormons, treat Mormons as outsiders, and deny Mormons the right to access a public forum based entirely on their being in the religious minority?

This disturbs me, ldsfaqs. You were in favor of North Carolina specifically discriminating against Mormons, and told me I was a liberal and hate religion because I think it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to favor other religious traditions over Mormonism. Now you are telling me I am a liberal and that I hate religion because I think the Establishment Clause prohibits a school district in Texas favoring traditional Christians over Mormons. You obviously think that people should be able to treat Mormons as inferior.

Why are you such a dedicated anti-Mormon, ldsfaqs? This is the second time now when you have vigorously asserted that the majority gets to impose its religious views on Mormons, and that the government gets to favor other religions over Mormonism.

[Guest]

It may be a "similar" point, but it's not the SAME because deception is not involved in any way.
Penn & Teller had two deceptions they relied upon.
- At an Environmental Event
- Used a word that "sounded bad", so the people there trusted them.

The not a joke statement was referring to the fact that people didn't think it was a joke, and they KNEW EXACTLY what they were signing. My statement itself clearly indicated that delineation, by giving a guy as an example of it. Your lack of reading ability is not my problem.

[_Darth J]

It may be a "similar" point, but it's not the SAME because deception is not involved in any way.
Penn & Teller had two deceptions they relied upon.
- At an Environmental Event
- Used a word that "sounded bad", so the people there trusted them.

The not a joke statement was referring to the fact that people didn't think it was a joke, and they KNEW EXACTLY what they were signing. May statement itself clearly indicated that delineation, by giving a guy as an example of it. Your lack of reading ability is not my problem.

Was the guy who made your video trying to make people who signed his fake petition look foolish? __Yes ___Yes

Were Penn and Teller trying to make people who signed their fake petition look foolish? __Yes ___Yes

Kind of ironic that you're so upset about a fake petition to take away people's established rights, but are in favor of a real petition to take away people's established rights, isn't it?

(The California Supreme Court had ruled that same-sex couples have a state constitutional right to marry. The whole point of Prop 8 was to invalidate the substantive rights that same-sex couples had been given in California.)

[_Darth J]

In any case, ldsfaqs, I don't know why I should listen to an anti-Mormon bigot like you, who wants to let majority rule take away Mormons' religious freedoms.

[_ldsfaqs]

Darth J, you clearly have reading comprehension problems....

I specifically stated that the minority should ALSO be fairly represented, and not felt left out by the majority etc.
Thus how you just represented me is COMPLETELY FALSE. And you're a trained lawyer???
Read my list again, you completely falsely represented me.

Thus, all the rest of your rambling is nothing more than fruit of the poison tree from your straw-man.

-----

Now, as to the case you reference. It was clearly an example of the majority "excluding" the minority. The Conservative dissenters dissented not because they wanted to "exclude" Mormons and Catholics, but because they were dissenting the bad law the majority of the court JUST THEN determined/created.

Liberal solution, if some feel slighted, just ban ALL RIGHTS.... That's what those Conservatives on the court dissented against.

You judge falsely as usual....

[_Darth J]

Darth J, you clearly have reading comprehension problems....

I specifically stated that the minority should ALSO be fairly represented, and not felt left out by the majority etc. Because how you just represented me is COMPLETELY FALSE.

Well, they were not fairly represented, and you specifically said that if all those alternatives fail, then too bad.

Thus, all the rest of your rambling is nothing more than fruit of the poison tree from your straw-man.

Because the chickens have come home to roost with their fingers in the dike like candy from a baby.

The case you reference was clearly an example of the majority "excluding" the minority, as well the Conservative dissenters dissented not because they wanted to "exclude" Mormons and Catholics, but because they were dissenting the bad law the majority of the court JUST THEN determined/created.

Liberal solution, if some feel slighted, just ban ALL RIGHTS.... That's what those Conservatives on the court dissented against.

You judge falsely as usual....

Yes, that's the kind of rationalization I expect from anti-Mormon bigots like you. You just said it is bad law for a school district to be prohibited from favoring Christianity over Mormonism. But notwithstanding your rabid anti-Mormonism, the Doe court explained the difference between private expressions of religion and government endorsement of religion (page 313 of the opinion):

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment prevent the government from making any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By no means do these commands impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools. See, e. g., Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384, 395 (1993); Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226 (1990); Wallace, 472 U. S., at 59. Indeed, the common purpose of the Religion Clauses "is to secure religious liberty." Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421, 430 (1962). Thus, nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the schoolday. But the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.

Your attitude is the same anti-Mormon prejudice that led to the Extermination Order and the murder of Joseph Smith. You want the majority to declare that Christianity is better than Mormonism and not let Mormons have the same freedom of religion as everyone else. You don't want it in Texas, or North Carolina, or anywhere!!!

Anti-Mormon scum!!!!!! :(

[_ldsfaqs]

Boring....

If you're not even going to try to accurately represent me before you mockingly try to immitate me, there is no hope for you.

Further, I did not say if those alternatives fail then too bad, I said if they aren't GOOD ENOUGH for that person, then too bad. What part of them being fairly represented in the process also is not "fair" to you?

Again, you falsely assume that "silencing" people is the same thing as fairness and tolerance.
It's not.

[_Darth J]

I've had enough of your vile anti-Mormon bigotry, ldsfaqs.