Topic of the day

Pina-

for the 254,584,845th time.....

The Constitution itself only has two things to say about religion- one, the government can't establish it, and two, the government can't interfere with your exercise of it.

As with all things, there are limits to this. Obviously, if my religion involves human sacrifice, the government can (and should) interfere with my free exercise thereof.

But saving that for another day.....exactly how is the student a "government actor"? Because he has to be in order for you to shut him down under the establishment clause.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying the student was in the right here (a 5-day suspension by the school is absurd, but that's yet another topic for another day) but since you invoked the Constitution, I'm having trouble understanding where the student's actions are unconstitutional (or why the school's actions ARE constitutional)

A big reason for the controversy is teachers handed out the flyers.

"Some were placed in teacher mailboxes, and when teachers handed them out, unaware of their content, some students mistakenly believed Oak Hills High was behind the letters."

Source

Kid knew the rules. Kid broke the rules. Kid got punished. Granted the punishment is a bit harsh, but I don't see what the big deal is.

Sounds to me like he did this intentionally to get the press for it. Hell, he admitted that he knew he could get in trouble for it, but did it anyway. Why didn't he go and get permission to hand them out? Why didn't he wait until after school to hand them out?

All he was really looking for is attention.

I have to agree that the kid was wrong, and he knew he was wrong. Five days.....I do think that is a little extreme.

My son's school(catholic) has a flier policy. They have a Wed. envelope that goes home every week. It has all the fliers and newsletter for that week, and the parent signs to acklonwledge recieving it. It's actually a great idea and cuts down on "I never got that" problem. Anything put in is also has to be approved.

That being said, I think what the flier said is an eye opener. And IMO part of the frustartion Sluggo is expressing. Christianity has taken a huge hit in the past few years. God can not be mentioned and should be taken out of the Pledge of Alligience. The whole Ten commanments being dipslayed issue. Taking any reference of Christ out of Christmas...not to mention it "Happy Holidays, not Merry Christmas anymore. The most recent thing is the "Christian bible thumpers" are repsonsible or Bush's re-electon [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img] .

Whether you like it or not, and whether you want to debate the "Separation of Church and State" issue.....Christians(reguardless of what religion you are talking) is a huge part of the US population...and IMO you are going to see a lot of them fighting back one flier at a time.

VERY well said, Boo. I appreciate y0our support. Since I had the stroke my mind often works faster than I can type and things do not always come out the way I mean. But that is what I was trying to say. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oldie Blonde Kenobi:
Whether you like it or not, and whether you want to debate the "Separation of Church and State" issue.....Christians(reguardless of what religion you are talking) is a huge part of the US population...and IMO you are going to see a lot of them fighting back one flier at a time.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fighting back? An interesting choice of words. What exactly are you fighting back against? Seperation of Church and State? Are you seriously saying that there should not be an explicit division between the two? Should we go back to having a Church of England, in this case a Church of the United States, where only the sanctioned religion is allowed? And just which form of christianity should it be?

Many, if not most, of the problems in the Middle East come from just such governmental recognition of religion as a political guide. Look at what's going on in Iraq right now, to say nothing about Iran, that bastion of freedom Saudi Arabia or even the never ending misery and death brought to you by Israel and Palestine. Do you really want to create an oppressed religiously defined sub-class in this country. Do you really want a civil war?

Seperation of Church and state was mandated to prevent just those sorts of abuses of the minority by the majority. This country was founded on the belief that all men are created equal, it's not just part of the constitution, it's one of the founding principles that serve to define us as a "free" society. Yeah, yeah, I know they had plenty of inequality at the time but the principle itself is still valid and we really need to think of where it might lead us if we abandon such a cornerstone of what made us the most envied country on the planet.

Just because we are working to correct two centuries of christian favoritism that was written into law in contravention of Seperation of Church and State is not an attack on you or your religion. You are free to practice whatever you wish, within reason, as long as you don't insist that the state show you undue favor. It's just an attempt to really create that even playing field that our founders could only realize in theory.

Sighing to self, and wishing Pina had comprehended Lew's post. The emphasis is mine, not our esteemed resident Esq.

[quote]Pina-
for the 254,584,845th time.....

The Constitution itself only has two things to say about religion- one, the government can't establish it, and two, the government can't interfere with your exercise of it.

As with all things, there are limits to this. Obviously, if my religion involves human sacrifice, the government can (and should) interfere with my free exercise thereof.

But saving that for another day.....exactly how is the student a "government actor"? Because he has to be in order for you to shut him down under the establishment clause.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying the student was in the right here (a 5-day suspension by the school is absurd, but that's yet another topic for another day) but since you invoked the Constitution, I'm having trouble understanding where the student's actions are unconstitutional (or why the school's actions ARE constitutional)

Again, the student tricked the school into having teachers pass out his letter in classrooms. This led students to believe the public school condoned the explicitly Christian message in the letter. If the student had been handing out his letter in the hall, this might have been handled a lot more quietly. And again, those supporting the Christian student's actions would probably be agitating for his expulsion if he had tricked the school into passing out an Islamic religious letter.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gae:
Sighing to self, and wishing Pina had comprehended Lew's post. The emphasis is mine, not our esteemed resident Esq.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">gae

Sigh all you want. I comprehended Lew's post just fine. Apparently you weren't able to understand mine.

Quote:

---

But saving that for another day.....exactly how is the student a "government actor"? Because he has to be in order for you to shut him down under the establishment clause.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wrote this in response to Lew:
"The student isn't the governmental entity. The school is. As a state sponsored institution it falls within the perview of the establishment clause and as such is prohibited from promoting any religion over any other. Since it is practically impossible for it to provide "equal time" for every religion on the planet it is for all intents and purposes forced to place restrictions on the conduct of those participating in its' day to day operations. Students, teachers, administrators, staff and even visitors to the school would be included in that group."

The school, as a governmental agent, is responsible for setting up and enforcing restrictions on behavior on its' premises. If an individual who falls into the group for which the school can set those rules disseminates religiously biased materials and the school does not act to punish the offender and to mitigate the damage that individual does then the school through its' inaction becomes complicit in the act itself. The school is not only responsible for its' own direct actions but must, as a governmental entity, do all that it reasonably can to see that promotion of any one religion does not occur on its' watch.

<font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ December 12, 2004 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Pi?a ]</font>

[quote]Originally posted by gae:
Sighing to self, and wishing Pina had comprehended Lew's post. The emphasis is mine, not our esteemed resident Esq.

Quote:

---

Pina-
for the 254,584,845th time.....

The Constitution itself only has two things to say about religion- one, the government can't establish it, and two, the government can't interfere with your exercise of it.

As with all things, there are limits to this. Obviously, if my religion involves human sacrifice, the government can (and should) interfere with my free exercise thereof.

But saving that for another day.....exactly how is the student a "government actor"? Because he has to be in order for you to shut him down under the establishment clause.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying the student was in the right here (a 5-day suspension by the school is absurd, but that's yet another topic for another day) but since you invoked the Constitution, I'm having trouble understanding where the student's actions are unconstitutional (or why the school's actions ARE constitutional)

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">gae,

I'm not sure why you don't understand pina, much less Lan, but the student mislead the school, and as a result the school was unintentionally acting as the agent for religious based material.

As difficult as it is for you to agree with Pina, he's making perfect sense. (See Enquirer editorial below.)

Note to Oldie: You are not being persecuted because because the Ten Commandments aren't allowed to be placed on government property. Puhleeeze.

<font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ December 13, 2004 08:56 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>