@wandeljw,
But wouldn't covering up those signs and symbols go against the Christian religion? It's not promoting anything or forcing anything on that person. This case (removing government) is about this person finding offense to religious items because it conflicts with their own. Covering up those signs could show that the government is actually siding against Christianity for that other religion. That would be a violation of rights.
As I read the story, they were originally planning on singing "Onward, Christian Soldiers" at the graduation. Have you read the words to that sucker lately? No way you can tell me that that's not about an establishment of religion. Which goes to show that that school and school board are more than a little unclear on the Constituion.
@MontereyJack,
I also read that they took that out to accommodate that single student. So really the only thing that's in question was the cross and those 2 signs.
I think the point, ch, is that it was in there in the first place.
@MontereyJack,
So now it's just about revenge? They disagreed with one little song that they didn't have to participate in so now they have to bring the whole thing down?
QWhere on earth did you come up with that? No. It's about separation of church and state. If the school officials were planning on singing "Onward, Christian Soldiers" at this year's graduation, as the story says, they very clearly were espousing christianity and hence have no idea what the Bill of Rights is all about.
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
QWhere on earth did you come up with that? No. It's about separation of church and state. If the school officials were planning on singing "Onward, Christian Soldiers" at this year's graduation, as the story says, they very clearly were espousing christianity and hence have no idea what the Bill of Rights is all about.
I didn't know that planning (in this sense) was a crime or a breach of anything. They said it was merely tradition that dated back 70 years. It had always been done that way...for SEVENTY YEARS, yet they changed it for that one single student. So that no longer has any merit in the case. What is now being argued are the signs and the cross.
Mindset. So they were in violation for 70 years. So it's time to change. Signs and the cross are a violation too. The longth of time you've done something unconstitutional doesn't give you any rigtht to continue doing it.
@MontereyJack,
What are they in violation of?
@wandeljw,
The establishment clause is not in effect here. Congress is not involved.
@Chights47,
Chights47 wrote:
But wouldn't covering up those signs and symbols go against the Christian religion? It's not promoting anything or forcing anything on that person. This case (removing government) is about this person finding offense to religious items because it conflicts with their own. Covering up those signs could show that the government is actually siding against Christianity for that other religion. That would be a violation of rights.
What "other religion" are you talking about?
The covering of the religious symbols would be temporary, only while it is being rented (with taxpayer money).
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
The establishment clause is not in effect here. Congress is not involved.
You are TOTALLY wrong. The establishment clause extends to local government according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
You're wasting your time, Wandel. Incorporation has already been explained in this thread, and the nickel has never dropped for RD.
@wandeljw,
Local government is not involved here either. It's a matter that has happened for 70 years with no problem until one person was offended. To use the US Constitution in this manner of twisted logic is shameful. Americans need to get back to what the Constitution actually says instead of allowing leftist judges make laws from the bench. That is why you are witnessing a real hope and change in America, not like the phoney one in 2008 . A lot of Americans are tired of the government telling us what we can and can't do with our private lives.
@Renaldo Dubois,
It's a public school, supervised by a local school board. I guess by Rennie Duboyz logic local school boards aren't local government.
Rap
@Renaldo Dubois,
I understand how you feel. It is only technically a violation of the establishment clause. It is not necessary for the ACLU to pursue minor violations. However, the solution they proposed is a mild one: temporarily covering any religious symbol.
@raprap,
It's a government school. Now you know why there are more Americans every year opting for non-government schools.
@wandeljw,
That violates religious freedom. That is un-American. No one has the right to not be offended in America.
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:
That violates religious freedom. That is un-American. No one has the right to not be offended in America.
So, no one has the right to be offended when the religious symbols are covered up.
