Online Now 3259

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2168
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3477
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Any fans of the ACLU here?

  • VTSmitty said...

    I don't know if anything can prevent that at this point

    Really? Fuck you.

    signature image

    BigCaliVT

  • Uncle DP said...

    Lets back up. Here is the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Work your magic on it and show me how these words can possibly be used to say that schools have a right to prohibit the free exercise of religion among its students. Go.

    Easy. The Congress (and by extension the states and the schools which receive federal money) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The commandments being displayed can be construed as an establishment of religion. Therefore you can't do it. It really is that simple

    Free exercise has nothing to do with it. Students are free to do whatever they want, they just can't use any state resources to do so.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre ●

  • joetheogre said...

    Easy. The Congress (and by extension the states and the schools which receive federal money) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The commandments being displayed can be construed as an establishment of religion. Therefore you can't do it. It really is that simple

    Free exercise has nothing to do with it. Students are free to do whatever they want, they just can't use any state resources to do so.

    Nope. That doesn't work. First, federal money is a red herring and the most invalid of all arguments used by those attacking the 1st Amendment. Neither it, nor the 14th Amendment ever mentions funding. Second, free exercise is 50% of the clause. You can't just ignore something because you can't lie it away. Come back with something that has nothing to do with funding (because the amendments don't) and that addresses free exercise (because the First does). This attempt was pretty weak.

    Uncle DP

  • joetheogre said...

    Easy. The Congress (and by extension the states and the schools which receive federal money) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The commandments being displayed can be construed as an establishment of religion. Therefore you can't do it. It really is that simple

    Free exercise has nothing to do with it. Students are free to do whatever they want, they just can't use any state resources to do so.

    Yes. It is easy. That's why Scalia thinks you might have a learning disability.

    signature image

    The way to a woman's mouth is through her phone.

    TJ2FAU163221

  • Uncle DP said...

    Nope. That doesn't work. First, federal money is a red herring and the most invalid of all arguments used by those attacking the 1st Amendment. Neither it, nor the 14th Amendment ever mentions funding. Second, free exercise is 50% of the clause. You can't just ignore something because you can't lie it away. Come back with something that has nothing to do with funding (because the amendments don't) and that addresses free exercise (because the First does). This attempt was pretty weak.

    The establishment clause and free exercise are mutually exclusive.

    The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. SCOTUS and the judicial system has interpreted this to extend to the States. Public building and schools are an extension of the states. A public high school can not use its resources towards the promotion of any religion, or religion more generally. This could not be more clear.

    The fact that you can't distinguish this from free exercise indicates you are trolling hard or are an idiot of the highest order. Free exercise is the right for people to attend whichever church they want or even for for students to organize a prayer group/religious club outside of school authority. This does not mean they have the right to use a school as a platform for their message, regardless of how unanimous support for it is.

    Not sure why you are even trying to arguing this. The school district is stupid for thinking they can fight the ACLU. They are just going to bankrupt their district and waste a lot of people's time over what, some stupid plaque/image? Just take the thing down and cut your losses. If they can't figure that out they are idiots who in all honesty deserve to lose their job. Teach kids, don't try to make a statement.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by joetheogre on 5/8/2012 at 10:15 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre ●

  • joetheogre said...

    The establishment clause and free exercise are mutually exclusive.

    The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. SCOTUS and the judicial system has interpreted this to extend to the States. Public building and schools are an extension of the states. A public high school can not use its resources towards the promotion of any religion, or religion more generally. This could not be more clear.

    The fact that you can't distinguish this from free exercise indicates you are trolling hard or are an idiot of the highest order. Free exercise is the right for people to attend whichever church they want or even for for students to organize a prayer group/religious club outside of school authority. This does not mean they have the right to use a school as a platform for their message, regardless of how unanimous support for it is.

    Not sure why you are even trying to arguing this. The school district is stupid for thinking they can fight the ACLU. They are just going to bankrupt their district and waste a lot of people's time over what, some stupid plaque/image? Just take the thing down and cut your losses. If they can't figure that out they are idiots who in all honesty deserve to lose their job. Teach kids, don't try to make a statement.

    Do you know what mutually exclusive means? Apparently not. And again, public funding isn't a part of either Amendment you're bastardizing.

    I do agree with you on one point. The school probably would go bankrupt fighting this but that doesn't mean you are right. Saying that the ACLU has enough money to bankrupt someone into submission doesn't make them right. It makes them a terrorist organization. You're basically saying "you're going to agree with us or we will destroy you". How awesomely pro-freedom is that stance?

    Uncle DP

  • Uncle DP said...

    Do you know what mutually exclusive means? Apparently not. And again, public funding isn't a part of either Amendment you're bastardizing.

    I do agree with you on one point. The school probably would go bankrupt fighting this but that doesn't mean you are right. Saying that the ACLU has enough money to bankrupt someone into submission doesn't make them right. It makes them a terrorist organization. You're basically saying "you're going to agree with us or we will destroy you". How awesomely pro-freedom is that stance?

    Public funding is FROM the Government. Thats where the phrase comes from, they take our taxes and the government uses that money to fund things.

    When schools are publicly funded they are then considered an extension of that government. That is the salient point you are missing here. It has been explained to you time and time again, but that is why the whole private vs public part of this is the center of the debate, and not some sidebar that you seem to believe it is.

    As long as schools are funded using government money, they are going to say exactly what can or cannot be done with those facilities. Since the government is forbidden from either denying or just as important, endorsing any particular faith, they simply stay out of religion.

    Is any of this getting through to you?

    AlwaysMore

  • Uncle DP said...

    You're basically saying "you're going to agree with us or we will destroy you". How awesomely pro-freedom is that stance?

    ... says the guy who says compromise is for pvssies and hates discussion.

    signature image signature image signature image

    sf2k4 ●

  • Uncle DP said...

    Do you know what mutually exclusive means? Apparently not. And again, public funding isn't a part of either Amendment you're bastardizing.

    I do agree with you on one point. The school probably would go bankrupt fighting this but that doesn't mean you are right. Saying that the ACLU has enough money to bankrupt someone into submission doesn't make them right. It makes them a terrorist organization. You're basically saying "you're going to agree with us or we will destroy you". How awesomely pro-freedom is that stance?

    I'm not bastardizing, I am interpreting the 1st Ammendment the way the courts of this country do. Sorry if that is a problem for you.

    To me it all seems very clear. It seems SCOTUS and I are in agreement.

    Enjoy being pissed off at our government and convincing yourself you are right on the internet. Or trolling, whichever it is.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre ●

  • SignalBama said...

    Yours is a singular view of the words without an understanding of why they were written and how they are applied in the real world. No one added anything or removed anything from the Clauses. The only one in this thread trying to make them not mean something they do is you. Everyone who has tried to explain it to you has been ridiculed by you. You simply tried to browbeat anyone that attempted to help you understand with your same singular view.

    We simply tried to help you understand again... Why they were written and how they were applied. We have done this through telling you the history of how they came about and how they have been applied in court rulings. You should visit a local school and ask the principle of that school about what is allowed there in relation to religion based on the first amendment. Ask him what the school allows and doesn't allow and then ask him why that is. You might find a firmer grasp of what they mean that way. I am heading out for the night. Was a fun little discussion. I really enjoyed most of your juvenile responses. Got a few chuckles. Have a good evening.

    Explain "The Constitution is a "'living document.'"

    GO!

    I guarantee that he wins.

    signature image

    The way to a woman's mouth is through her phone.

    TJ2FAU163221

  • BigCaliVT said...

    Really? Fuck you.

    Well that wasn't a very Christian thing to say.

    VTSmitty ●

  • AlwaysMore said...

    Public funding is FROM the Government. Thats where the phrase comes from, they take our taxes and the government uses that money to fund things.

    When schools are publicly funded they are then considered an extension of that government. That is the salient point you are missing here. It has been explained to you time and time again, but that is why the whole private vs public part of this is the center of the debate, and not some sidebar that you seem to believe it is.

    As long as schools are funded using government money, they are going to say exactly what can or cannot be done with those facilities. Since the government is forbidden from either denying or just as important, endorsing any particular faith, they simply stay out of religion.

    Is any of this getting through to you?

    Your logic is flawed. Where does the government get it's money? It gets it from the same people whose rights the ACLU wants to violate. The simple fact that the government was "nice enough" to funnel some of the money back to a town it had siphoned it from inbthe first place does in no way change the facts of the situation. The facts are simply that the government CANNOT legally prohibit the free excercise of religion. Ever.

    Besides, what in this entire nanny state we live in isn't government funded? Hell, most people's homes and cars are at least partially government funded (FYI, schools are not fully government funded but they're close) now and all roads are. Can we not practice our religion in those places either? What about displaying religious stickers on cars driving down State or US highways? What about people in housing projects? Can they not pray before dinner or own bibles?

    The answer to those questions is clearly "yes". They can practice their religion in those places, regardless of funding, as a result of the First Amendment. Same goes for schools.

    Uncle DP

  • sf2k4 said...

    ... says the guy who says compromise is for pvssies and hates discussion.

    I never said that. Quote? Link?

    Uncle DP

  • Uncle DP said...

    Nope. That doesn't work. First, federal money is a red herring and the most invalid of all arguments used by those attacking the 1st Amendment. Neither it, nor the 14th Amendment ever mentions funding. Second, free exercise is 50% of the clause. You can't just ignore something because you can't lie it away. Come back with something that has nothing to do with funding (because the amendments don't) and that addresses free exercise (because the First does). This attempt was pretty weak.

    Interesting, a couple of churches established themselves by having services in local schools where I lived, by utilizing the same rules available to any other group using the facilities. Not dissimilar to small rural communities in the past which had school at the church or church in the school...

    signature image

    PSUTE

  • Uncle DP said...

    Your logic is flawed. Where does the government get it's money? It gets it from the same people whose rights the ACLU wants to violate. The simple fact that the government was "nice enough" to funnel some of the money back to a town it had siphoned it from inbthe first place does in no way change the facts of the situation. The facts are simply that the government CANNOT legally prohibit the free excercise of religion. Ever.

    Besides, what in this entire nanny state we live in isn't government funded? Hell, most people's homes and cars are at least partially government funded (FYI, schools are not fully government funded but they're close) now and all roads are. Can we not practice our religion in those places either? What about displaying religious stickers on cars driving down State or US highways? What about people in housing projects? Can they not pray before dinner or own bibles?

    The answer to those questions is clearly "yes". They can practice their religion in those places, regardless of funding, as a result of the First Amendment. Same goes for schools.

    as much as it pains me to say, this actually kinda makes sense

    signature image signature image signature image

    Dawg E Style161

  • What's goin on up in this bitch?

    clayclay

  • [bvg]ride said...

    What's goin on up in this bitch?

    Just dropping knowledge on some folks. How you been?

    This post was edited by Uncle DP on 5/9/2012 at 9:49 AM

    Uncle DP

  • Dawg E. Style said...

    as much as it pains me to say, this actually kinda makes sense

    biggrin

    signature image

    shoeless7777

  • Uncle DP said...

    Your logic is flawed. Where does the government get it's money? It gets it from the same people whose rights the ACLU wants to violate. The simple fact that the government was "nice enough" to funnel some of the money back to a town it had siphoned it from inbthe first place does in no way change the facts of the situation. The facts are simply that the government CANNOT legally prohibit the free excercise of religion. Ever.

    Besides, what in this entire nanny state we live in isn't government funded? Hell, most people's homes and cars are at least partially government funded (FYI, schools are not fully government funded but they're close) now and all roads are. Can we not practice our religion in those places either? What about displaying religious stickers on cars driving down State or US highways? What about people in housing projects? Can they not pray before dinner or own bibles?

    The answer to those questions is clearly "yes". They can practice their religion in those places, regardless of funding, as a result of the First Amendment. Same goes for schools.

    Now its your logic that is flawed.

    It is still the government that runs, funds and has those schools. And since we already know that the government cannot support any particular religion, they cannot put religious items in those schools.

    The government was always funded by some sort of tax. Its irrelevant where that money comes from. Its still the government, and they have rules about endorsing any religion.

    Your entire post is completely idiotic, because you are changing the argument. Nobody has once said that individuals cannot "practice their religion" anywhere they want. What is being argued is the school, as a body of the government, cannot endorse or promote any religion. Your inability to differentiate between a person and an organization is very troubling.

    Your questions are irrelevant, because they have nothing to do with any of this. Is there any way that you can be bothered to pick one subject and discuss only it?

    AlwaysMore

  • AlwaysMore said...

    Now its your logic that is flawed.

    It is still the government that runs, funds and has those schools. And since we already know that the government cannot support any particular religion, they cannot put religious items in those schools.

    The government was always funded by some sort of tax. Its irrelevant where that money comes from. Its still the government, and they have rules about endorsing any religion.

    Your entire post is completely idiotic, because you are changing the argument. Nobody has once said that individuals cannot "practice their religion" anywhere they want. What is being argued is the school, as a body of the government, cannot endorse or promote any religion. Your inability to differentiate between a person and an organization is very troubling.

    Your questions are irrelevant, because they have nothing to do with any of this. Is there any way that you can be bothered to pick one subject and discuss only it?

    You can't even follow a simple chain of logic. My questions do apply because it is the students, not the simply the people running the schools, who want these items displayed and therefore the government cannot legally force them to take them down. You're conveniently pretending that it is only the superintendent or the principle who wants these items displayed. If that were the case, then yes, that would constitute government sanctioning, but it isn't the case. The students have spoken up and supported the displays, therefore removal of the items would be interference with the free exercise of religion and, as such, unconstitutional.

    Uncle DP

  • UDP? What are your views on other legal principles not found in the constitution(Public Trust Doctrine, Dormant Commerce Clause, etc)? In addition, the role of any legitimate government is to protect the rights of individuals not just from the government itself, but in addition from infringement upon others. Everyone is entitled to natural rights, such as those outlined in the BoR, and governments have a duty to intervene if those rights are being infringed, especially in the case of infringement by private entities.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "The Michigan Man is certain he invented the Big Ten, along with intellect, cocktails and sex."

    Wendel Clark

  • Uncle DP said...

    You can't even follow a simple chain of logic. My questions do apply because it is the students, not the simply the people running the schools, who want these items displayed and therefore the government cannot legally force them to take them down. You're conveniently pretending that it is only the superintendent or the principle who wants these items displayed. If that were the case, then yes, that would constitute government sanctioning, but it isn't the case. The students have spoken up and supported the displays, therefore removal of the items would be interference with the free exercise of religion and, as such, unconstitutional.

    Students do not run schools. They have ZERO voice in what goes up in those schools.

    Is that simple enough for you?

    It is 100% irrelevant what the students want.

    You bringing the students wishes up, is therefore a 100% irrelevant argument.

    AlwaysMore

  • AlwaysMore said...

    Students do not run schools. They have ZERO voice in what goes up in those schools.

    Is that simple enough for you?

    It is 100% irrelevant what the students want.

    You bringing the students wishes up, is therefore a 100% irrelevant argument.

    Indeed. coffee

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

  • AlwaysMore said...

    Students do not run schools. They have ZERO voice in what goes up in those schools.

    Is that simple enough for you?

    It is 100% irrelevant what the students want.

    You bringing the students wishes up, is therefore a 100% irrelevant argument.

    The Constitution disagrees with you. As a government institution, schools cannot legally infringe on the students' right to free practice of their religion...ever and no matter how loudly you cry about it.

    ETA: I'm regretting even dignifying that ignorance with a legitimate response. That was easily one if the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. You literally just said that it isn't the citizens (the students) who matter, it is the government (the school) that matters. You completely raped the Constitution with every word you just vomited onto this board. Just STFU.

    This post was edited by Uncle DP on 5/10/2012 at 7:57 PM

    Uncle DP

  • Uncle DP said...

    The Constitution disagrees with you. As a government institution, schools cannot legally infringe on the students' right to free practice of their religion...ever and no matter how loudly you cry about it.

    No court would have a plaque in a room constitute freedom of exercise.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports