Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: UnklGene

This is a tough one for me. While I don't want to see any particular religion promoted, I don't want to see first amendment rights violated either.


5 posted on 06/22/2006 10:53:02 AM PDT by Mazda3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Mazda3Fan
While I don't want to see any particular religion promoted...

Exactly what do you think the words "free exercise thereof" meants?

12 posted on 06/22/2006 10:56:11 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mazda3Fan

Why is it a tough one for you? What do you not understand about free speech? Note the key word: "free." That means we're free to speak. In a public high school. Note that word, too: "public."

You try to quash my freedom to speak freely about my "particular religion," and see what happens.


13 posted on 06/22/2006 10:58:12 AM PDT by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mazda3Fan

In this case, it was an individual making the statements, not the official policy of the school.

Those are two different issues. Obviously, you do not want the government to run a church based school. But you also should not censor individual student's (and teachers I might add) statements of their personal beliefs.

Separation of church and state as a concept was NEVER intended to keep an individual from being exposed to other peoples ideas. In fact, at it's root is a philosophy intended to make sure YOU ARE exposed to other peoples ideas.

I am solidly behind this brave young lady.


15 posted on 06/22/2006 11:00:44 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mazda3Fan
While I don't want to see any particular religion promoted, I don't want to see first amendment rights violated either.

The gov't is NOT establishing a church; an individual who earned the right to speak, was silenced. This is a public event, and a citizen was denied the right to address a crowd; not because of attempts to incite a riot, not because of slander, not because of an intent to promote an atmosphere of hate, but to thank publically God for their accomplishments.

If the topic had been "My American Jihad", the speech would likely be manditory attendance.

17 posted on 06/22/2006 11:01:41 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mazda3Fan
This is a tough one for me. While I don't want to see any particular religion promoted, I don't want to see first amendment rights violated either.

Let see:

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.

I don't see anything in there that says speaking of one's faith is a form of the government "promoting any particular religion".

You might want to study up on the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights .. they're breathtaking.

"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides." --Margaret Thatcher

23 posted on 06/22/2006 11:11:51 AM PDT by tx_eggman (Islamofascism ... bringing you the best of the 7th century for the past 1300 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mazda3Fan

"This is a tough one for me."

Not for me, real easy. Why, in this country, would you not be able to say this. You have got to be kidding me. I guess if she reference Allah, that would be alright.


27 posted on 06/22/2006 11:23:23 AM PDT by teddyballgame (red man in a blue state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mazda3Fan
This is a tough one for me. While I don't want to see any particular religion promoted, I don't want to see first amendment rights violated either.

The correct solution - which will never happen - is simply to abolish public screwels.

37 posted on 06/22/2006 11:39:26 AM PDT by Doodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mazda3Fan

Might read Joesph Story - A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States" Published in 1840 ,and
1859 A condensed version of his seminal Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States Of America.Section 444 speaks to the First amendment and declares that the General if not universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to recieve encouragement from the State... anattempt to level all religions or to make it a matter of Statpolicy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobaon if not universal
indignation." Cited directly by the US House Judiciary report on the Establishment clause by Mr Meacham US House of representatives Mar.27,1854.Story was th son of one of the Indians of Boston Tea Party , a graduate of Harvard Law (when that meant somehing good) Is memorialized in the
permanent displays of the US suprem Court building- and sadly has been edited out of our education concerning our
Constitution- for convienence sake?


54 posted on 06/22/2006 11:58:52 AM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Mazda3Fan

Why do you have a problem with individuals promoting religion? Do you have a problem if they promote anti-religious ideas?


92 posted on 06/22/2006 12:57:26 PM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson