ACLU Looking to File Suit Over JHS Graduation "Altar Call" (Someone shoot me)

http://www.kait8.com/Global/story.asp?S=4150375&nav=0jsh ^ | November 21, 2005 | Heather Flanigan

[RobbyS]

And why not? because the Supreme Court beginning with Everson in 1947 completely flipped the meaning of the First Amendment.

[Sloth]

As I suspected you are in the camp that would feel safer from possibly offending language if the government posted a sniper at each and every public event so that offenders of your delicate sensibilities could be taken out instantly.

God disapproves when you lie.

[Lancey Howard]

In a letter written by the Arkansas ACLU executive director Rita Sklar, the event is described as a “blatant display of contempt for the First Amendment.”

LMAO!!!
You would think that these athiest Democrat scumbags at the ACLU would at least have a passing familiarity with the First Amendment. For Rita's benefit, here's the pertinent part. These are also the first sixteen words of the Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

[MrEdd]

And if you can't see that, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Meaning that you can't defend your position in any real debate and aren't about to try.

[SergeantsLady]

If obscenity is to be judged by local standards, why not religious sentiments? That's a new perspective for me to consider...on the surface it sounds reasonable enough for both committed Christians and agnostic members of the ACLU to be able to agree on.... Ironic. I like it. Although, as a Christian somehow it seems like using the Devil to do my Preaching... (but I've heard he's very persuasive...).

In any event, I do hope that this particular case is allowed to fade away. The Jonesboro Community would probably prefer not to have this discussion... And that teenager should just go on & enjoy her life. She may have been impetuous but sometimes I miss that fervent spirit that could lead me into a Lions' Den for my faith...as a somewhat "older", somewhat less impetuous woman, I've learned that you don't have to go into the Lions Den...the Lions in life come out looking...

[StolarStorm]

Nice personal attack. I can see what sort of "Christian" you are.

[muawiyah]

God doesn't really care.

[muawiyah]

You're terribly judgmental.

[SoothingDave]

We already discussed your point Dave, and you lost.

Being an ass really doesn't help your position. I am not the one here who thinks "majority rules, to hell with the minority" is a critical point of our Constitution. I have seen more posters agree with me than with you.

SD

[SoothingDave]

There's still a problem with the government school inviting anybody in to proselytize ~ they simply are not Constitutionally eligible to do that.

You're not self-aware at all, are you? This is exactly what this young lady did, and exactly what rational people are objecting to.

SD

[StolarStorm]

troll

[Jim Noble]

Jessica Reed is not Congress.

She isn't even a frickin' Member of Congress.

So how can this possibly have anything to do with an Amendment which begins, "Congress shall make no law...."???

[muawiyah]

Here I am making individual rights (in this case those of a young lady to speak) supercede your sense of personal outrage as well as the vote of the majority.

So, you don't think individuals should have any rights?

[muawiyah]

So, she proselytized ~ none of your damned business. She was invited to speak. Unless the school district was in the business of DICTATING THE PRAYER, something which is Constitutionally prohibited (according to the Supreme Court), she could pray as she wished.

Your narrow, petty, sectarian viewpoint on what is permissible religious expression (or prayer) in public is the problem ~

[muawiyah]

You are still terribly judgmental.

[Virginia-American]

Being Catholic, I'm not familiar with a lot of Protestant ritual, but don't you need an altar to have an altar call?

I happen to agree, basically, with SD on this; if I wanted to go to a revival, I'd go to a revival.

If a speaker wants to invoke God or Jesus, fine; but asking people to convert is a bit much. It could easily be the case that next year the valedictorian is Muslim or Buddhist or something else non-Crhistian. But there's no violation of the law here, IMO; I think the poster who said she was glorifying herself, or showing off, is right.

[GovernmentShrinker]

If they invite EVERYBODY in to proselytize, including atheists, agnostics, etc., then they are being quite neutral. It's the selective invitations that violate the neutrality principle.

But I quite agree with you that public schools simply shouldn't exist.

[muawiyah]

The question of "selectivity" is mere semantics. Neutrality means that even a federal judge ought to totally ignore any question that raises the question of whether words or deeds are religious in nature.

[mathurine]

They only want a case where they will be awarded fees for their "services." Kind of like pimps.

[FeeinTennessee]

Don't you know anything about other folk's religions?

---

Inviting someone to come to Christ is hardly imposing on other people..it's an invitation. No force involved.