tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
As far as the nativity scenes, ect, those case laws were not against the religion, they were against the notion that only ONE religion could display while denying others the same right. Many places now allow many religions to display. Prayer was the same thing. Since only one prayer was allowed, it was unconstitutional. Forcing children to pray, again, unconstitutional. Which is why silent moments are allowed, so that anyone of any faith may pray or devote their time, even atheists, to their own beliefs. Which is why bible clubs have formed at schools, since other groups with people of similar interests can meet, schools cannot ban religions from doing the same thing. Public schools even must allow the devote time to attend to their religious faith. Muslims have changed that rule in schools.
In this, with your belief that religion must be within the home or private sector, i can see your biggotry against religious people. And thats truly sad. People can do bad things in the name of religion. Dont confuse that with religious people. There is a difference.
tazzygirl, i know this is an emotionally charged topic for some people but please let's not stoop to name calling. It places a chill on our discussion. i am not bigoted against believers. i am amused perhaps at the recent attitude of martyrdom they adopt when after almost two thousand years they find that the non-believers have made some gains in pushing back against the insufferable dominance of believers.
As to the display of nativity scenes on civic property the most recent Supreme Court case i could find was this:
In 1985, the United States Supreme Court ruled in ACLU vs Scarsdale, New York that nativity scenes on public lands violate separation of church and state statutes unless they comply with "The Reindeer Rule" - a regulation calling for equal opportunity for non-religious symbols such as reindeer.[42]
You can read about it here
The issue is clearly not the display of just one religion but the display must involve non-religious symbols also. Off hand, i cannot think of a non-believers symbol, but it would be interesting to see what the outcome would be if some Atheist Group petitions to have their logo or sign displayed as well.
Lets see if i cant find you something a bit more current...
On the issue of nativity scenes, there are two primary precedents: Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) and Allegheny v. ACLU (1989). Both cases were 5-4 decisions that broke down pretty clearly along ideological lines, with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor being the key vote in each. She joined the more conservative group in the first ruling to give them five votes and joined the more liberal group in the second ruling to give them five votes.
Continued -
In Lynch, the Court ruled that a nativity display in Rhode Island did not violate the establishment clause. They held that the celebration of Christmas was more cultural than religious and that any endorsement or advancement of religion was “indirect, remote and incidental.” Part of the reason was that the explicitly Christian symbols were mixed with secular symbols like Santa Claus and a Christmas tree and a sign saying “Season’s Greetings.”
In Allegheny, the Court ruled on two holiday displays on public property in Pittsburgh, one a Christian nativity scene and the other a large menorah. The Christian display in this case was much more explicit than the one in Lynch, including an angel with a banner that declared “Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ.”
Justice Harry Blackman distinguished that type of display from the mixed display in Lynch, saying, “Although the government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus.”
After these two cases, the basic rule has been this: the government may put up such displays as long as they mix in enough secular symbols — snowmen, candy canes, reindeer, etc — to water down the message of endorsement. But that leaves open the question of just how many secular symbols must be included and what type of symbols they have to be. And this is further confused by the fact that in Allegheny, the Court considered a menorah to be enough of a secular symbol to pass muster. As a result, lawsuits continue to be filed all around the country over nativity displays on public property.
http://michiganmessenger.com/624/church-state-controversy-how-to-find-peace-in-the-war-over-nativity-scenes
They consider a menorrah as secular... hmm... interesting no?
http://www.forward.com/articles/1790/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174289,00.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1076844
Im sure you can find more....
quote:
I was teaching in public school at the time that religious clubs were allowed and i quite clearly recall that the issue was equal club opportunity, and it was resolved by allowing relgious clubs to meet when classes were not in session and so protect the wall of separation.
As far as prayer in the schools is concerned you neglect the entire reason for the prohibition. For several hundred years non-believers and Jews were forced to listen to "In the name of the father, son, and holy ghost, amen." And the readings daily from the Bible. The religious folk fought tooth and nail to retain that ritual until one woman with courage went before the U.S. Supreme Court. You make the history and impact of it sound all so innocent when in fact it was a gross imposition upon non-christian children.
Cute attempt, but here is the real case.
In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Union Free School District No. 9 in Hyde Park, New York had violated the First Amendment by directing the Districts' principals to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."
The 1962 Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,") in Engle v. Vitale has since been upheld by both liberal and conservative Supreme Courts in six additional cases:
•1963 -- ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP -- banned school-directed recital of the Lord's Prayer and reading of Bible passages as part of "devotional exercises" in public schools.
•1980 -- STONE v. GRAHAM -- banned the posting of the the Ten Commandments on public school classroom walls.
•1985 -- WALLACE v. JAFFREE -- banned observance of "daily moments of silence" from public schools when students were encouraged to pray during the silent periods.
•1990 -- WESTSIDE COMMUNITY BD. OF ED. v. MERGENS -- held that schools must allow student prayer groups to organize and worship if other non-religious clubs are also permitted to meet on school property.
•1992 -- LEE v. WEISMAN -- outlawed prayers led by members of the clergy at public school graduation ceremonies.
•2000 -- SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE -- banned student-led pre-game prayers at public high school football games.
But, you can still pray
Through their rulings, the court has also defined some times and conditions under which public school students may pray, or otherwise practice a religion.
•"at any time before, during or after the school-day," as long as your prayers do not interfere with other students.
•In meetings of organized prayer or worship groups, either informally or as a formal school organization -- IF -- other student clubs are also allowed at the school.
•Before eating a meal at school -- as long as the prayer does not disturb other students.
•In some states, student-led prayers or invocations are still delivered at graduations due to lower court rulings. However, the Supreme Court's ruling of June 19, 2000 may bring this practice to an end.
•Some states provide for a daily "moment of silence" to be observed as long as students are not encouraged to "pray" during the silent period.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa070100a.htm
quote:
The last thing I have to remark today because i have to nap and go to Poker with my buds tonight is this.... Christian Fundamentalists (Bibilical Literalists) remain unrelenting in trying to force their views upon the public schools. One only need look to Texas where there is a move afoot to ban the teaching of Darwinism in the schools. One need only look to recent failed attempts to have Creationism certified as a topic of Science in Biology classes.
Its texas, what do you expect?
quote:
There is an unending struggle between Fundamentalism and Secularism. At the moment the tide seems to be favoring Secularism a little more, but that is faint compensation for all the decades of Fundamentalist ascendency in America and for all the harm it has done in keeping people ignorant and retarding the growth of science and medicine. So now Christians are feeling a little put upon. But that's no excuse for name calling. Let the good struggle continue.
Its name calling only if its not true. To state that religious freedom isnt part of what began in this country is to ignore one of the fundemental foundations. Beyond popular opinion, most religious people are hard working and care little for the argumentative issues surrounding their belief. What they are tired of is being lumped in with religious zealots. There will always be factions within any group that lay on the fringe of that group and society that believe any ends justify the means.
quote:
I will peek back tomorrow. I hope you have some interesting reply.
Goodnight for now, tazzygirl 
vincent
Interesting reply? I suppose some part of you believe you are right, therefore righteous, in your beliefs. Yet, you are doing just what you accuse religion of doing. Perhaps you need to rethink your views on many subjects.
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread