100,000 back bill to curb ACLU

[Penny_Plain]

pnewton:

Of ourse it seems clear to you. That is what an opinion is. You believe the coach was imposing his religion, I believe that the school was prohibiting free exercise.

I notice that you tend to change the subject when you get asked a question you can’t answer. Try this one: It’s easy.

Really.

Suppose the coach was a Native American practitioner of the peyote cult. Suppose further he coached at a public school in New Mexico where most (but not all) of the students followed that religion. Suppose he did a peyote ceremony before the game and your child was on the team. What would you do?

This one’s easy, too.

Suppose he was a practitioner of Santeria and sacrificed a chicken before the game. What would you do?

One more.

Suppose he was a Muslim and most of the players were Muslims (but not your son). Suppose he lead a prayer that began, “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.” What would you do?

I know the answer. You’d complain bitterly. If you could find a lawyer, you’d sue the school, and you’d be within your rights to do so.

What’s the difference between these cases? The only one I can find is that one is Christian and the others are not. You believe that Christian religion should hold a special place in the law because it’s “part of our heritage” or some such. Tell me how that squares with the First Amendment that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion.”

You think Christianity’s already established. You think it should receive special treatment under the law.

 

[pnewton]

Penny Plain:

I notice that you tend to change the subject when you get asked a question you can’t answer.

I responded directly to the post I quoted. Please attempt to keep posts free of false accusations.

Suppose the coach was a Native American practitioner of the peyote cult…
Suppose he was a practitioner of Santeria and sacrificed a chicken before the game. …
Suppose he was a Muslim and most of the players were Muslims (but not your son).

I know the answer. You’d complain bitterly. If you could find a lawyer, you’d sue the school, and you’d be within your rights to do so.

I will answer each of your examples after I point out that once again you are incredibly wrong in your attempt to judge me. You said, “You’d complain bitterly.” There would be nothing bitter at all about any response I have. If I have an issue (and I have no religious issues in the above situations) Under no circumstance would I sue. Let me take each one.

Peyote guy - I would not sue, but merely arrest the man for bringing a controlled substance into a drug-free zone. The courts have consistently uphelp that exercis of religion can not interfere with legitimate institutional goals, like keeping schools free of dangerous drugs. This scenario is unrelated to the coach we are comparing to, because he violated no criminal laws.

Santeria guy - I do not know, as the circumstance might dictate the response. For instance, how old are the kids? Is he the only Santeria man? Sanitation? Again, this is a different situation because the coach in question did nothing involving butchery, blood or candles.

If it is necessary to go to extreme examples, it shows how weak the arguement is.

Muslim guy - My son should stand by in silent respect as his teammates said their prayers. He should respect this coach and attempt to earn his respect by not acting like a cry-baby.

In no case would I involve a lawyer…except maybe to play the role of the chicken for Santeria guy.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Warning: This thread is degenerating into the participants discussing each other rather than the topic of the thread and is definitely lacking in charity. It will be closed if this trend continues.

 

[2shelbys]

Penny Plain:

Then answer the question I asked you before and stop beating around the bush:

I take it your answer is “Yes”?

Another irrelevant question that really has nothing to do with the issue at hand but OK. It is their responsibility to work for their constituents but no one would cut their own throat to support such a desire and it would never pass judicial scrutiny so why don’t you stick to trying to support your argument on the topic of this thread? Because you can not support it?

And while we are at it, why don’t you answer my question and stop beating around the bush?

Is it your position that any small group of people should be able to settle in a new country and proceed to force that country to abandon it’s heritage? Should a handful of us be able to move to Israel and force them to stop displaying the Star of David?

 

[2shelbys]

Penny Plain:

I notice that you tend to change the subject when you get asked a question you can’t answer. Try this one: It’s easy.

Really.

Suppose the coach was a Native American practitioner of the peyote cult. Suppose further he coached at a public school in New Mexico where most (but not all) of the students followed that religion. Suppose he did a peyote ceremony before the game and your child was on the team. What would you do?

This one’s easy, too.

Suppose he was a practitioner of Santeria and sacrificed a chicken before the game. What would you do?

One more.

Suppose he was a Muslim and most of the players were Muslims (but not your son). Suppose he lead a prayer that began, “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.” What would you do?

I know the answer. You’d complain bitterly. If you could find a lawyer, you’d sue the school, and you’d be within your rights to do so.

What’s the difference between these cases? The only one I can find is that one is Christian and the others are not. You believe that Christian religion should hold a special place in the law because it’s “part of our heritage” or some such. Tell me how that squares with the First Amendment that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion.”

You think Christianity’s already established. You think it should receive special treatment under the law.

Well I do not know about him/her, but if my son was on a team that was all Muslim or whatever I would not have a problem with them worshiping their God in their way at all. I am not arrogant enough to expect the majority to alter their lives to conform with mine. I suspect he/she will feel the same. Besides, letting a coach or whoever lead a prayer is not even close to the same as “Congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion”. Looking over the weak and irrelevant arguments that you and Mike continue to re-post I would say this debate is over.

 

[bones_IV]

MikeWM:

Are people being stopped expressing their faith in the public square when acting as individuals?

When acting as the agent for a government body - that is another matter.

How does that ‘expose’ anyone?

What personal expressions of religion are being censored?

The Christian faith is dominant so over-reaches far more often than any other faith. It is self-evident that the ACLU will be dealing with Christians far more often than any oter faith.

Mike

you’re a sophist and not a very good one at that.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Thread closed

Reason: discourteous

Please review forum guidelines before posting.