Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Already labelled me as anti-Christian, shows your true colors. No where have I stated anything remotely anti-Christian, but it shows exactly where you are coming from. You wanna be persecuted, and that's how you're intent on seeing it.
Actually I never once called you anti-Christian nor have I called myself a Christian (I did admit that I'm not that good of a Christian role-model) so it appears that much of your "logic" is assumption based. You saw something you thought could be interpreted as a personal attack and decided that it would be in the best interest of your argument to take it as such. That doesn't do much to convince me that your interpretation of the first amendment is better than mine.
Now .... for the record .... I do indeed profess Christianity as my personal belief. No, I'm not the best of disciples. Feel free to swing that red herring if you must (wait - don't get `em bunched. I didn't say you'd resort to it. I just said it doesn't matter).
First of all is the point, if it had been "In Budda we trust" bet your bellybutton there'd be people protesting to all hell about that one. Otherwise, don't use it as a part of your argumentation if you don't want to hear that it was not something that was added quite recently in the history of your nation and NOT something our nation was founded on or supports.
No ... it was an aside to show how ridiculus some people get when they feel threatened. But, sure ... let's go there. "In God we trust" is not a Christian phrase. You may search all the Christian writings and teachings and you will not find it. Christianity does not endorse or require that inscription on money for it to be "blessed" or for it to avoid being "cursed." The term "God" is quite generic. It can be the God of Christians or Jews or Muslims or Sun worshippers or Techno worshippers or self-worshippers or non-worshippers.
So don't think that my telling you that I think it's a stupid waste of time and taxpayer money and reveals a serious lacking in the common sense of those pursuing this action is a defense of Christianity.
If you took it as a personal affront, then that's probably just because of your stance in relation to it. It was not a personal attack. If you support it then I don't think you're any stupider than the others who do so.
Secondly, you are interpretating it how you want to as well. Nevertheless, you keep repeating anti-Christian this and that. Try keeping all religion out of state and federal places, and then you'll be on the right track. Right now, you are way over yonder in left field.
Your first line does not lead more creedence to your interpretation versus mine. You haven't once addressed my insistance that the author and ratifiers of the first amendment were apparently quite comfortable with how it was being interpreted by schools and state sponsored organizations that allowed Christians complete freedom of religious expression. Yes, I've used the term anti-Christian time and again. That's because nobody has tried to use the first amendment to force any other religion to not express itself .... yet. When that happens, I'll gladly modify it as is fit.
And .. at least I'm on the field. Some aren't even in the stadium.
Public schools are paid for by, guess who?, the public. The public doesn't consist of only Christians, hence the need to keep all religion out of public schools period. Don't come stating, "it's not offensive!" because it isn't to you... it probably is to someone else.
Your hypersenitivity is touching but the constitution that was penned to protect the rights of all, Christian and non-Christian alike, states that everyone in this nation has freedom to express their religion (or not to express any affiliation). It doesn't say "until someone gets easily offended by seeing someone wear a cross on school grounds".
The statement about displaying product advertisement is indeed not non-sequiteur. It shows that displaying advertisement isn't allowed in public schools, and this isn't a mis-interpretation either. The kids will be told to take those shirts off if they wear them. Do tell, what is the point of displaying your religious affiliation if for nothing else than advertisement? Christianity does not require you to display your crosses, Muslims _DO_ require their women to wear full dress and cover their face. The latter is a requirement by their faith, the former is simply an advertisement.
No .. it's non-sequiteur. It does nothing to support the first amendment meaning the "elimination of free expression of religion" instead of what it actually says. There isn't a single amendment in the constitution that says "Congress shall not pass laws allowing the advertisement of commercial products on public school grounds." You're using it as an example to supposedly support the schools right to do something unconstitutional simply because the school has a rule against something. The constitution neither supports nor objects to commercial advertisement on school grounds.
Whether it is a strict requirement of your religion to dress a certain way or it's voluntary on the individual's part is not the issue, either. The first amendment clearly states that Congress can't pass laws that infringe on an individual's right to religious expression. Anyone can express their religious preference as long as they don't force others to believe in something they don't want to.
The point is this nation has no national religion or faith. It's a free country for all, to practice what they wish. Putting the God stuff on the money and in the pledge is an indication of the entire country's religious affiliation. This country is becomming more and more diverse, and when it was NEVER intended to have a state or federally adopted religion to drive it, then it's a good indication those words never should of been placed there in the first place.
You and I are in total agreement on the first two lines. Your problem with the word "God" is duly noted but reading it as an endorsement of a state supported religion is paranoia.
You keep spouting "misinterpretation", maybe the problem is you never interpretated it properly in the first place simply because you are obviously already biased to your own side.
Ahhh .. the "I know you are but what am I" logic is once again substituted for actually directly challenging my basis for my interpretation. So, why didn't you offer a counter-argument to mine? Do you really think the author and ratifiers wrote what they wrote, watched things unfold and told themselves, "Eh ... maybe they'll get this by the mid twentieth century or so."?
And the school system that suspended the TA over displaying her cross .... crossed the line
No, it did not. She was warned twice. She failed to comply twice. That doesn't set a very good example to the students she's supposed to be teaching. If she didn't learn the first two times, and continued to break the rules, she's first of all not a very good TA, and second of all needs a little timeout to realise the rules apply to her too.
Yes ... it did. It infringed on her freedom to express her religious belief. Nothing has been confirmed that she actively proselytized to her students or even mentioned the cross around her neck ... or that even any of the students noticed. If any of them did, though, it would have probably been because rumor got out that she was being harrassed by the school system to conceal it or remove it. The school rule is unconstitutional. The school system there was wrong. As I've said in this thread time and again, the "roolz iz roolz iz roolz" argument .... isn't one, really.
If you need to wear jewerly to affirm you faith, it's fairly evident you lack it in any substance anyway.
I never said I had to. But I support that TA's right to wear hers. As I do the Muslim computer lab teacher's right to her free expression of her faith. As I do someone wearing a Star of David or a Hindu sporting a bindi.
Besides, anyone who's threatened by my merely wearing a cross around my neck has some serious insecurity issues and if they feel the need to take it to extremes, they need help.
