Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 226 of 256 (212763)
05-31-2005 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Silent H
05-30-2005 12:05 PM


Otherwise come up with some valid points to show why a student at a function is necessarily an "agent" of the school system and everything they say is an "endorsement" of a position.
Because "agent" doesn't mean "employee". It's really just that simple. Student speakers who speak at the pleasure of their school, or who operate a student newspaper at the pleasure of the school, are state actors.
It's a well-established legal principle that you don't seem to be aware of.
A student "represents" the school in a different way than the officials "represent" the school system.
Absolutely false.
Now I am wondering why you even brought up the case you did... just to bitch and moan?
No; to substantiate the growing trend of Christian interference in our private lives via the mechanism of the state. Remember?
You do not have to be a lawyer, nor a judge, to know enough about the law to address certain cases, especially when dealing with CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Let me give you a hint, you need to know the CONSTITUTION, and the law or ruling under question, and some SCOTUS (or trends within them).
Hey, that's fine. But in a fairly ambiguous case, some professional legal minds came to a different conclusion than you, one I find defensible.
Why does that drive you so goddamned crazy?
If you impersonate a police officer, in most places you will be commiting a crime and get arrested.
Of course.
My cirticism was the Judge's denial her speech was infringed upon, as well as (and more importantly) your claim that if she had sung the song it would have been a violation of your constitutional rights.
I seem to recall retracting from that claim. Try to keep up, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Silent H, posted 05-30-2005 12:05 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Silent H, posted 05-31-2005 4:34 AM crashfrog has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 227 of 256 (212768)
05-31-2005 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Silent H
05-30-2005 3:33 PM


holmes responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Depends on context. As sung in the way that John Lennon did it, no.
The question gave the context of a teen using up time alotted at a mic on graduation day. Now answer the question.
I did. It depends on context. "A teen using up time allotted at a mike on graduation day" is not sufficient to determine context. It will depened on what happens before and what happens after. It will depend upon any previous history the student has regarding such a subject.
quote:
What god?
Why does it matter? The mere recognition of the existence of a god is necessarily a religious act.
quote:
My guess is Dion is probably Xian
You don't know? She's Catholic.
quote:
quote:
Not mentioning god is not an insult.
Demanding that others never mention God, including during moments where they are going to express personal emotional opinion (like say a graduation ceremony) is an insult.
Why? Are you claiming that freedom of speech is absolute?
Not right here. Not right now.
quote:
Mentioning God is not always that and not always an insult.
It is unconstitutional whether it is insulting or not. Do rights only get violated when people make a fuss?
quote:
How does this answer my point at all?
Because you are confusing the fact that people ignore the restrictions with the idea that the restrictions are of no use.
quote:
What that does not mean however, is that if they had allowed the girl to sing, that she would have been an agent of the state or selected by them to give a specific message which they endorse.
That is precisely what it means, though. The fact that they have the right to put her on the stage at their pleasure is precisely because by putting her on the stage to speak, she is an agent of the school. The school's ceremony, the school's message, the school's presentation. Every single person involved is acting for the school.
quote:
Just because an entity refuses to invoke a proscriptive power they might have, does not mean they endorse everything which passes through.
Of course. But without an explicit caveat that "the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the school," it is a reasonable assumption that the comments are endorsed. After all, the speaker wouldn't be there unless the school allowed it.
quote:
ALLOWANCE DOES NOT EQUAL ENDORSEMENT.
No. But if it's your show and you don't indicate that you are opening up the system to people who aren't under your control, it is reasonable to assume that it is.
And given that the Constitution expressly prohibits the government from endorsing religion, the school cannot afford even the appearance of impropriety. The easiest way to do that is to remain silent.
Not right here, not right now.
quote:
quote:
Strange, that's not what the SCOTUS said. You do recall the lawsuit against the students who used the PA system before the football games to deliver prayers. The speakers were chosen by the student body and yet the court still found that it was unconstitutional for the school to engage in such activity.
That is a different case and a different context. For a guy so hot for context, how could you miss the huge difference?
Because it's the same context. Didn't you read the case? They tried the same arguments that you are making: The speaker was selected by the student body. Football games aren't mandatory. Nobody had to listen if they didn't want to. It was an expression of the student.
If it is inappropriate for a student-selected student to give a prayer over the PA at a football game, what difference does it make that it's a graduation ceremony instead? The presence of a football and plastic shoulder pads makes people take it more seriously? That there are people who are not members of the school present has an effect?
quote:
In the graduation ceremony an individual is stating their own personal feelings at that highly emotional moment, about their experiences, and their futures. It is an individual and isolated event.
And that is different from the same action at a football game how? If you can't do it at a football game, why can you do it at a graduation ceremony?
quote:
Having prayers at football gameS
Excuse me? It isn't like the PA announcement was scheduled to be a prayer. Why does the fact that it happened multiple times have to do anything? How many times must a constitutional right be violated before it becomes an actual violation?
quote:
You could actually tell me what religion she was advocating?
I don't have to. The standard is not the endorsement of a specific religion. It is the endorsement of religion, period. It doesn't matter which religion she was endorsing. It doesn't matter how vague and nebulous the expression. The acknowledgement of the existence of god is by its very nature a religious act and is thus prohibited by the school.
quote:
quote:
A graduation speaker, however, is one who has been vetted by the administration. One who has been specifically given a platform with which to speak and one where if any of the students in the audience were to interrupt and tell the speaker to shut up, sit down, get off the stage, etc., would be rightfully ejected from the ceremony.
WRONG.
Excuse me? Are you saying that if the school were to do this, they wouldn't be within their rights to do so? You are confusing the actual act with the right to perform said act. That the school might not do so is irrelevant. They have every right to do so. It's their ceremony, their rules.
That's why they banned that pregnant girl from participating. When she announced her own name and walked across on her own, she and her family were promptly arrested and escorted out.
quote:
As it happens there have been cases of people who have been interrupted and ejected from the ceremonies, including people specifically asked by the administration to come and talk.
Yes, usually because it was easier to stop the disruption by removing the speaker rather than trying to arrest the protestors, possibly causing a riot. But again, you are confusing the performance of an act with the right to perform said act. The school has the right to yank the speaker and they have the right to yank the audience. Nobody is present except at the pleasure of the school. When a problem presents itself, the school must decide how to handle it given their rights. A single person in the crowd behaving like an ass? Then the three rent-a-cops can probably take care of that. But if it's half the students and they're rushing the stage, then something else will need to be done.
And even so, the school has every right to prosecute any of the disruptors they can get their hands on. The fact that they may not do so is irrelevant. It is their right to do so.
quote:
That does not however mean that if he had allowed it, it would have violated anyone's constitutional rights.
Since that question was never considered by the court, that's hard to say. We can only go off of other court cases and the precedent seems to be clear: It would have been.
quote:
quote:
I have to be able to say no to every single religious idea you put forward in order to be truly free.
You do have that freedom.
Not according to you. You claim I don't have freedom from. But freedom from means being allowed to say no to any and all religious ideas you put forth, even ones you haven't yet mentioned. You can't have true freedom unless you are allowed to say no to everything.
And that's freedom from.
quote:
You have been arguing a position that others may not put forward religious ideas at all. That is the freedom FROM I was knocking.
That the effective result of being allowed to veto everything and then following through. The only way to ensure that you neither endorse nor prevent is to remain completely silent.
quote:
Yes, I freely admit that the song is religious in nature in that it certainly suggests there are forces beyond ourselves that can help us.
So how is that not a religious activity? Why does it matter what god I'm making my plea to? I'm not allowed to make a plea to any god, no matter how poorly defined.
quote:
That is different than advocating a particular religion or deity.
Indeed. But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what particular religion or deity I'm advocating. The admonition is not against a specific religion or deity but against all religion. It doesn't matter how vague the definition of god, I'm not allowed to bring god up.
quote:
The announcement that one believes in a religion and it has helped them, hardly forces anyone to know what faith you must follow, or that you even have to follow one.
In line before you enter the auditorium, spontaneously shouted as the principal hands you your diploma, afterward at the party, you go right ahead. But on the school-provided microphone?
Not right here, not right now.
quote:
quote:
Why does it matter? You can't be talking about god unless you give a specific name for that god?
Yes it matters. Read the Bill of Rights.
I have. That's why it doesn't matter. It doesn't talk about specific religions. It talks about all religion. It talks about the mere concept of religion. It doesn't matter how generic you think your expression is. This was an argument put forward by those who were advocating school prayer: "It's non-denominational." Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how generic the religious expression. All religious expression at the action of the school is forbidden.
quote:
quote:
George is talking about getting laid. Celine is talking about god.
Heheheh. That depends on how you look at it.
No, it's pretty explicit:
Well I guess it would be nice
If I could touch your body
I know not everybody
Has got a body like you
quote:
In any case, the point I was trying to make was that "faith" does not point to anything specific.
Which only makes sense if one is trying to equivocate. The word "faith" does point to something very specific. Context makes it clear. George is talking about having the faith to fall in love so that the sex will be that much better. Celine is talking about having religious faith in god to take care of us.
quote:
I guess I should have gone for a Madonna song instead.
When is Madonna not talking about sex? That was part of the entire controversy behind "Like a Prayer": She was suggesting that she was going to have sex with Jesus in the video (and the burning crosses didn't help, especially with the Jesus being black).
quote:
You respect diversity by TOLERATING the differences.
Precisely. That's why not right here, not right now is so important. It is incumbent that you tolerate the differences and consider the possibility that what you're about to do is inappropriate and should not be done. Not right here. Not right now. End the ego trip and consider somebody else for a change.
quote:
quote:
I am? Since when did I ever say I was gay? I certainly don't recall mentioning it. I've been very careful not to say one way or the other in order to counter precisely the argument you are trying to use: That my statements are somehow related to my status.
Uhhhh, you sure do suggest it, if you don't come out and say it.
Good. It's working. The point is to show that people's arguments are based upon personal prejudices and not upon rational thought. That you made such an assumption and responded based upon that assumption is an example of what I was trying to accomplish.
quote:
What a bunch of rubbish. Hey, all fundies are asking is that homosexual activity not be considered appropriate in public (not here, not now), and in some cases illegal.
Is that tolerant of diversity? No.
(*chuckle*)
What does "equal treatment under the law" mean to you? If heterosexuality is allowed, then homosexuality must be allowed, too. And if religious endorsement isn't allowed, religious denial isn't allowed, either. Equal treatment.
The easiest way to do that is to simply shut up about it.
quote:
You were refusing to accept her statements of personal enjoyment of faith, not a statement of intolerance towards other. Or are you suggesting there was something intolerant within those lyrics?
I'm saying it is irrelevant what the religious statement was. She can't sing a song about how horrible god is just as much as she can't sing a song about how great god is and just as much as she can't sing a song about how there is no god. The problem isn't the emotional imagery. It's the fact that it's about god.
quote:
It is tiny to those who would have heard it
Says who? Newdow got all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for his daughter's right not to be indoctrinated with "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance. And the highest court that actually looked at that question found for him. The SCOTUS rejected it not by saying the decision of the Ninth Circuit was wrong but by saying the father had no standing to bring the suit in the first place.
Violation of constitutional rights are only important if enough people complain about it?
quote:
Your insinuation to the contrary hardly makes me want to continue talking with you.
Then do yourself a favor and don't. You don't read my posts, anyway.
quote:
Look at those lyrics and explain to me how they are a religious ceremony? A worship service?
I already did. Message 215.
quote:
By the way, when did I ever say I didn't know who sang the song? That was in the very first post the article was cited in.
Can't remember your own words, eh? Message 166
I thought it was something from Celine Dion.
You mean you didn't know? Pardon me for taking your words seriously.
quote:
and that's what you suggested as well.
Where? I said the contrary, in fact. At worst, I said nothing one way or the other.
quote:
On top of that you made statements which indicated an unfamiliarity with the article.
Citations, please. Be specific.
quote:
As it is I believe my position is tied with current interpretation.
Incorrect. It is in precise opposition with current interpretation.
If you can't do it at a football game, why can you do it at graduation?
quote:
quote:
The acknowledgement of the existence of god is by necessity a religious ceremony.
That is ludicrous.
How is it anything but? Is not god necessarily connected to religion? Note, I am not saying that all religions include god. I'm saying all gods include religion.
quote:
quote:
What about spiritual belief systems that do not include gods?
What about spiritual belief systems that have multiple gods?
What about spiritual belief systems that are of the opinion that god doesn't care about your daily life?
I don't see any of these groups being offended or contradicted (especially the multiple God system) by the lyrics in that song.
And you, of course, are the ultimate arbiter of whether something is offensive or not.
quote:
It is generic enough to be fitted to anything.
It can't fit a god that doesn't interfere. So much for deists.
Besides, it doesn't matter how generic the reference to god is. It's that it's a reference to god.
quote:
Please point to the lyrics that show this.
I already did. Message 215.
quote:
As far as I can tell that covers (is acceptable) to almost all polytheistic religions currently in practice, as well as the spiritual yet no god religions.
And those that think god isn't male but is female or beyond such concepts as sex?
quote:
Just to let you know, I don't have so much time to answer your posts as they are currently being written. Can you please keep things short?
I will respond with as much rigor as I feel necessary. You are free to ignore my posts as you see fit. If you have something better to do, then do it. We've been through this over and over again, holmes. You have no control over me. Please stop trying. I am not beholden to you.
That said, physician, heal thyself! If you don't want long responses, then perhaps you should refrain from writing 5-page, 2500 word responses.
quote:
1) The subject of if her singing the song would have been a violation of your rights,
Yes.
quote:
2) What makes that song a religious ceremony (or what is a ceremony in the first place)
The fact that it was a prayer to god.
quote:
3) What lyrics within that song count as an establishment of a religion
Asked and answered. Message 215.
quote:
4) What makes a student an agent of the school system.
Asked and answered.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Silent H, posted 05-30-2005 3:33 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 05-31-2005 5:24 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 230 by Phat, posted 05-31-2005 7:28 AM Rrhain has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 228 of 256 (212773)
05-31-2005 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by crashfrog
05-31-2005 1:29 AM


Because "agent" doesn't mean "employee". It's really just that simple. Student speakers who speak at the pleasure of their school, or who operate a student newspaper at the pleasure of the school, are state actors.
Tell you what, why don't you show me case law and SC decisions which support this concept of "agent", such that it would apply to any student who happens to get the floor at a public school event.
I have already offered you counterexamples, which you continue to dodge. But here it is one more time:
If this is true then everything said by students at dances, parties, talent shows, skit shows, plays, etc etc etc are considered to be acts of agents of the school and endorsed by the school.
According to you, Dion's song could not be played at any school function, along with most rock and roll music, correct?
That seems patently false given the nature (variety) of content found at all of these things. Allowance does not equal selection or endorsement.
Absolutely false.
When a principal tells a student they should behave because they "represent" the school, it is different than a teacher who "represents" the school system and its policies. One is figurative representation of the pride or spirit or honor of the school (a typical student from school X), while the other is a figure who has been given authority by the institution for institutional goals.
Here are the dictionary defs from Merriam-Webster for Representative:
1 : serving to represent
2 a : standing or acting for another especially through delegated authority b : of, based on, or constituting a government in which the many are represented by persons chosen from among them usually by election
3 : serving as a typical or characteristic example
4 : of or relating to representation or representationalism
A student at a ceremony or function giving their own opinion (or best effort for physical/mental competitions) would be 3 (or possibly 1). A teacher or other school official would be 2 as well as 1 and 3.
For sure, students can be delegated authority for institutional reasons and so become type 2 representatives, but that is not for every function (including the one under discussion).
No; to substantiate the growing trend of Christian interference in our private lives via the mechanism of the state. Remember?
But don't you get it? If you believe that judges are the only people able to make opinions about laws and decisions then your complaint is moot. How can "Xians" be "interfering", when a judge is telling you that this is an appropriate level of protection for children allowed by law? It is not about Xianity or interference, but actual legal protection mechanisms that are in place. After all he didn't create a law.
I got what you originally meant, and agreed with you. Your move to get out of the way of a criticism of another position has completely changed your ability to make your first point.
But in a fairly ambiguous case, some professional legal minds came to a different conclusion than you, one I find defensible.
That's funny because I thought I was arguing against your comment that it would have been unconstitutional if she had spoken, and NOT the decision of the court. I know I started out that way, but then specifically stated that I changed my position.
What I did disagree with, which was the heart of my disagreement with the decision and still remains despite my acceptance of the decision, is the comment by the judge that her right to free speech had not been violated. Well, actually it had been.
That a judge declares it has not been, does not make it so. That is what further decisions and the public at large will eventually decide on.
What was important, and so why I ended up agreeing with the decision is that while he had technically violated her free speech rights, he had the capacity to nix many others for many different reasons. Should an authority figure be held legally accountable for a technical breach of free speech when he is acting in good faith in an overcautious fashion, when he is also nixing other speeches for other reasons?
I feel the answer is no, but then guidance could have been made by the judge for future instances, which he did not actually do.
One might note that a judge (a JUDGE) specifically said that the case could have had a different outcome if the kid had addressed the issue of whether the principle had been leaving other speakers untouched. That could have shown he was only attempting to stop her speech.
Why does that drive you so goddamned crazy?
The only people apparently being driven "crazy" are you and rrhain. I am getting "frustrated" that you are both using really bad tactics to try and make your points, and continually calling my character into question. I am also "saddened" that it appears authority is going unquestioned, and tolerance is being undercut by people who make claims to questioning authority and advocating tolerance elsewhere.
Although you have seen an increase in the use of CAPS, and ????, and smart-assedness, you have not seen me losing my cool enough to avoid debate in the fashion you two have been doing.
You both can do better, and should do better.
I seem to recall retracting from that claim. Try to keep up, ok?
If you have retracted your position that her having sung the song would have been unconstitutional then indeed I have missed it. That would be my error. Although it then confuses me why you are continuing to argue your support for that position within this very reply to me.
If you agree that her having sung the song would not be unconstitutional (a breach of your rights) then we are in agreement and there is nothing more that needs to be said, unless you want to point out to me where I made the mistake of missing your earlier comment.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2005 1:29 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2005 8:16 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 229 of 256 (212777)
05-31-2005 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Rrhain
05-31-2005 3:45 AM


I will respond with as much rigor as I feel necessary. You are free to ignore my posts as you see fit. If you have something better to do, then do it. We've been through this over and over again, holmes. You have no control over me. Please stop trying. I am not beholden to you. That said, physician, heal thyself! If you don't want long responses, then perhaps you should refrain from writing 5-page, 2500 word responses.
While you are free to respond with all the vigor you can muster, I am informing you that there is a point where it is no longer useful. Indeed there are further restrictions on my time now, and as I will shortly be getting busier (even more so).
You should note that in response to your short post to me, you got a short response and it was only to your lengthy post that you received a lengthy reply.
The reason is that you make numerous points in your lengthy replies that I tend to feel like responding to. It is definitely a weakness of mine that I don't want to appear to be dodging a question, or somehow validating the point, by leaving something unanswered.
I will be more brief in any case, and was pointing out now how this might be helped by you, which in turn can only help you if you are actually wanting to discuss something.
I will also be trying something new. I will attempt to answer your post until you resort to:
1) A quote mine
2) Arguing against a position I did not hold or was answered if you just kept reading (fracturing my post for your own convenience)
3) Pretending you know anything about me and making up facts which are untrue about me
4) ad nauseum arguments
I did. It depends on context. "A teen using up time allotted at a mike on graduation day" is not sufficient to determine context. It will depened on what happens before and what happens after. It will depend upon any previous history the student has regarding such a subject.
So if you had an outspoken atheist, or a very spiritual person, wanting to sing "Imagine" the song would then be against your constitutional rights?
Why does it matter? The mere recognition of the existence of a god is necessarily a religious act.
Religious in the broad sense, not in the strict sense which you are using it as part of an "establishment of religion" and "conducting a religious ceremony".
You don't know? She's Catholic.
Hmmmm... That makes her an enemy of the fundies. So I guess she wouldn't be supporting that religion, yet someone from that religion could have used her song and felt okay. Same for just about every religion out there including the polytheists and Buddhists. This only furthers the point that it was not a specific religious ceremony, or (in context) used to establish a religion.
Why? Are you claiming that freedom of speech is absolute?
No it isn't, though I am for a very extensive freedom of speech. I will freely admit that it is one that differs (is more open) than most SC interpretations made within the last century, though is of the growing trend within the SC.
Not right here. Not right now.
Ahhhh, yes. And I should add to the list your ability to create mantras. That is not an argument. I can agree with it and yet have a completely different interpretation of what that means.
I am arguing that your position and thus your version of that slogan, is one of intolerance and repression and conformity, much like the fundies have used such slogans. Please don't repeat that slogan again, just argue what constitutes why not right here and right now.
It is unconstitutional whether it is insulting or not. Do rights only get violated when people make a fuss?
You will find that they did not decide her singing it would have been unconstitutional and that indeed she may have had a case if she had brought it in with a different focus on the principal's actions.
In any case, you are now switching back and forth. I was specifically replying to your comments about its capacity to "insult", divorced from its constitutionality. Please don't bebop back and forth between what position you want to discuss.
The fact that they have the right to put her on the stage at their pleasure is precisely because by putting her on the stage to speak, she is an agent of the school. The school's ceremony, the school's message, the school's presentation. Every single person involved is acting for the school.
Again, I am confused by your position on this. It is troubling enough that you believe allowance is equal to "putting" someone somewhere and filling their mouth with words that represent your position. But it seems you actually like that idea.
Maybe its just that I'm anti-authoritarian and thankfully grew up outside of institutions you have gone to, but the depiction above is not relevant to what went on where I was, and I would hate to see it imposed upon others.
The article mentioned that she could have made a different case based on the authoritarian level of control of the proceedings, which sort of supports what I am getting at.
But without an explicit caveat that "the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the school," it is a reasonable assumption that the comments are endorsed.
No, actually its not reasonable... its legalistic. IMO it is a sad state of affairs that more and more people require such caveats explicitly stated in order to be able to tell the difference between a personal statement and a position of an entity that ALLOWED someone to speak.
Let me take this another direction and specifically refer to the statements of undisputed "agents" of the school. According to your position then, you are against sex education and distribution of condoms at school? Indeed you agreed with the dismissal of the Surgeon General after her comments supporting the mentioning of masturbation as an alternative to sexual acts with others? You agree that homosexuality should NOT be mentioned in school, or given any sort of supportive statements be administrators?
If mere mention is advocacy, then these all indicate an advocacy of positions counter to people's religious positions and a violation of their rights.
But if it's your show and you don't indicate that you are opening up the system to people who aren't under your control, it is reasonable to assume that it is.
Ahem, it always seemed to me that graduation ceremonies are explicitly opening the mic to people that are not under "their control", besides time constraints and causing a disruption. It does not seem reasonable to me at all to believe what each speaker says at graduation in any way shape or form is a message from the school.
Again, having heard comments regarding drinking and partying and some dissing of administrators and teachers and policies at those functions and others, I can tell you for sure that at MINE they were not "under control" and an assumption of such a thing would have been a great error.
Over here, when I heard the girl singing "fuck" and giving blowjobs I was pretty certain the administrators had not chosen that to endorse the school's position on student behavior. So that school as well appears to defy your assumption.
Not right here, not right now.
Okey doke, ad nauseum it is... as well as a useless mantra that is not an argument and can mean anything to anybody. I agree with it and disagree with you.
So hopefully you'll get your act together in your next reply. If you want a discussion with me, remember the list above. If you want to monologue, keep on truckin'.
doei.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Rrhain, posted 05-31-2005 3:45 AM Rrhain has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 230 of 256 (212785)
05-31-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Rrhain
05-31-2005 3:45 AM


Rrhain writes:
Why does it matter? The mere recognition of the existence of a god is necessarily a religious act.
If that is all that is being demanded...that no mention of any type of God be allowed in public...than I am against your "freedom from religion". It is as equally offensive to me for belief to be exorcised from public life as it is for you to have to tolerate it.
I'll admit that were it Hinduism, I would feel differently.
Its like how unfair it is for a restaurant to spend tens of thousands of dollars to make a wheelchair ramp so ONE guy in town can get to the bathroom. Majority should rule.
Of course, I can also see your side of the argument. Its just that it scares me to have a non theistic government. Were you a believer, you would know what I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Rrhain, posted 05-31-2005 3:45 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 8:02 AM Phat has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 231 of 256 (212788)
05-31-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Phat
05-31-2005 7:28 AM


quote:
If that is all that is being demanded...that no mention of any type of God be allowed in public...than I am against your "freedom from religion".
Not just "in public", phatboy.
What is being discussed is government endorsement of religion.
You do understand the difference, don't you?
quote:
It is as equally offensive to me for belief to be exorcised from public life as it is for you to have to tolerate it.
Well, what do you mean by "public life"?
"In public" is different from "in or during a publically-funded buidling or event."
quote:
I'll admit that were it Hinduism, I would feel differently.
Then you must leave behind this notion that "majority rules" and that we need to compell everyone to think and behave the same by force of law in order to be strong.
quote:
Its like how unfair it is for a restaurant to spend tens of thousands of dollars to make a wheelchair ramp so ONE guy in town can get to the bathroom. Majority should rule.
So, you think it should be legal to discriminate against people?
quote:
Of course, I can also see your side of the argument. Its just that it scares me to have a non theistic government.
Phatboy.
Please listen to me.
The United States of America has always been a secular government, by explicit design of our Founding Fathers.
They wanted to found a government on the premise of giving individuals as much freedom as possible to live all aspects of their lives as each individual saw fit.
They saw the corruption and tyrrany of the religious majority in the monarchy they came from and rejected any semblance of the idea that one had to be a member of the "state religion" to serve in public office, to own land, etc.
Instead, they believed that each person should follow their own conscience WRT religion and that the government had no business trying to influence or mandate any specific religion to the citizenry.
Again, I think that the basic American values are probably too tolerant of difference and pluralistic for you and you would be more comfortable somewhere in which the government made everyone think and behave the same way.
quote:
Were you a believer, you would know what I mean.
Sure.
You happen to be in the majority belief, so you naturally feel like you have the right to impose that belief and moral system upon the rest of us.
That is why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
To protect the rest of us in the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
Just because you are in the majority doesn't give you the right to trample over the rights of others, phatboy.
So, are you going to tell me if you find the following statement attractive? Is this the kind of theocratic government you want?
It pretty much sounds like what Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson (and you) have been advocating.
The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life.... The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed.... It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the...nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith. The Government..., who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with (religious leaders) and are endeavouring to develop them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Phat, posted 05-31-2005 7:28 AM Phat has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 232 of 256 (212791)
05-31-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Silent H
05-31-2005 4:34 AM


If this is true then everything said by students at dances, parties, talent shows, skit shows, plays, etc etc etc are considered to be acts of agents of the school and endorsed by the school.
The school doesn't elect certain few students to go to dances or be in plays, so your counterexamples fail to be relevant. The critical factor you seem to miss is that speakers at graduation have been appointed by the school to speak. Thus, they represent the school as state actors.
When a principal tells a student they should behave because they "represent" the school, it is different than a teacher who "represents" the school system and its policies.
No, of course it's not different. You don't think the principal of the school is in a position to determine who represents the school and who does not? Ridiculous.
For sure, students can be delegated authority for institutional reasons and so become type 2 representatives, but that is not for every function (including the one under discussion).
How do you figure that a student graduation speaker isn't being delegated authority? Obviously, they're being delegated the authority to deliver public address at an official school function. Thus, they are actors for the state.
But don't you get it?
Don't you get it? I'm not making the argument from authority; I'm simply pointing out the fact - incontrovertable fact - that neither of us have the legal background needed to countermand a judge's reasonable decision in an ambiguous case.
Anybody can come to the right decision in the easy cases, Holmes. C'mon.
What I did disagree with, which was the heart of my disagreement with the decision and still remains despite my acceptance of the decision, is the comment by the judge that her right to free speech had not been violated. Well, actually it had been.
If she hadn't been a speaker, but just an audience member, and had stood up mid-ceremony and sung, would you still hold the same position? Is the right to free speech absolute?
Or doesn't the school have a legitimate right to direct speech at its own school functions?
I am getting "frustrated" that you are both using really bad tactics to try and make your points, and continually calling my character into question.
I get a little frustrated because you insist on getting ridiculous about this stuff. It's really hard to argue with you because, once again, you're making every possible effort to distort my position, and in bringing in counterexamples that lack crucial, relevant characteristics. How on Earth is a school dance, open to the entire student body, relevant to a situation where the school is electing students to speak on its behalf?
If you agree that her having sung the song would not be unconstitutional (a breach of your rights) then we are in agreement
I don't know if it would have been unconstitutional or not. That's not relevant to the school excercising moderation over the content of speech on its behalf.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Silent H, posted 05-31-2005 4:34 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Silent H, posted 05-31-2005 12:11 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 236 by Phat, posted 05-31-2005 1:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 233 of 256 (212830)
05-31-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by crashfrog
05-31-2005 8:16 AM


The critical factor you seem to miss is that speakers at graduation have been appointed by the school to speak. Thus, they represent the school as state actors.
The critical element you seem to miss is that all schools do not APPOINT speakers. I have already stated examples of this. If this is true where you went to school then I certainly agree, but it sure as heck didn't happen at my high school nor my college.
There is an open question of IF the school whose case is on the table more or less appointed students and planted what they had to say, or not. There is a pretty good indication they did not and the Judge said if the case had stressed that it might have turned out differently. And in this case it was pointed out the she WAS ELECTED by students and NOT APPOINTED by the school. Indeed she WAS ELECTED by students and NOT ALLOWED by the school. If she had been ALLOWED, that would be different than APPOINTED.
In any case, your original position (before this post) was that anyone at a public school event was a "representative". Remember principals reminding students they are a representative so no fart jokes? They say the same thing at all those other events and indeed they often do go through a similar de-selection process of student choices.
You don't think the principal of the school is in a position to determine who represents the school and who does not? Ridiculous.
I have pointed out that there are two definitions of "representative". I have argued why one applies to one group and the other to another. You answers have been nothing but restatements of your position. That is not good enough.
Yes, a Principal CAN delegate authority to a student and make them a real life representative of the school system, that is not however what is being done when a principal reminds a student that they are a representative and so that they should keep it clean or do their best.
When you represent your school at a track meet it is then educational system policy that your school must beat another school?
Obviously, they're being delegated the authority to deliver public address at an official school function. Thus, they are actors for the state
They are being allowed to speak, not delegated to fill an institutional role normally assigned to a teacher or official. Once again I point out that the same thing happens at dances and parties and other such events. Please explain the difference between a person being allowed by a principal to deliver a public address at an official school function that is not a graduation, versus a person doing the same thing at a graduation.
I'm simply pointing out the fact - incontrovertable fact - that neither of us have the legal background needed to countermand a judge's reasonable decision in an ambiguous case.
You mean I don't have the position necessary to overrule that judge? Yes. To disagree with and be right? No.
I can make a case and argue it and not have to hear arguments that mine is "just an opinion" and I have to listen to a particular person because he has a law degree.
That is an argument from authority any way you cut it.
Or doesn't the school have a legitimate right to direct speech at its own school functions?
Yes it does have that right, which is why I changed my position. Let me explain it again... The principal (or whoever is coordinating the event) has to make decisions on who gets to speak and who doesn't based on many different factors. The principal was wrong to nix the student's song for the given reason, but given that he has the power to nix things for any reason could very well have nixed it for something else and no one would have been the wiser. Also, while wrong, it was a mistake made because he was trying to do the right thing, and thus working in good faith. In that case it does seem too harsh to hold him legally liable for that mistake.
How on Earth is a school dance, open to the entire student body, relevant to a situation where the school is electing students to speak on its behalf?
The people who get to the mic at such events are decided upon in the same way as the speakers at graduation ceremonies. If they are not where you went to school, then fine, your argument may work for your school. Where I went they are decided on in the same manner... student orgs choose people (or bands) to be at the mic or choose playlists and the principal or some other administrative turns thumbs up or down on the choice the students have made.
The article said the girl was chosen by the students, so it sounds like a similar process.
To turn your own argument back at you, no song on a record makes it to the speakers of a school dance without the officials having had some say in the selection, right? Thus the content of any song played is "endorsing" school policy? Come on, get real.
I don't know if it would have been unconstitutional or not.
Good enough. That is a change from your original position where you continually insisted that her singing the song would have been a religious ceremony and a violation of your rights... the main notion I was arguing against.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2005 8:16 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2005 6:45 PM Silent H has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 256 (212831)
05-31-2005 12:17 PM


Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?
Topic folk.
We were talking about Senate rules of procedure.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 235 of 256 (212832)
05-31-2005 12:21 PM


For those looking at theocracy driven by Judges...
Here's and interesting bit of theocratic activism from the bench. I don't have a law degree but I can tell you for sure a judge letting criminals escape jail time or rehab if they go to church is a bit off as far as the Constitution goes.
Here's what the judge has to say in his own defense..
"I don't think there's a church-state issue, because it's not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church,"
Smoooooth. The rather obvious reply from the ACLU, which I'm sure many layman could come up with, was...
"The judge is saying that those willing to go to worship services can avoid jail in the same way that those who decline to go cannot," Friedman said. "That strays from government neutrality towards religion."

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Phat, posted 05-31-2005 1:20 PM Silent H has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 236 of 256 (212835)
05-31-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by crashfrog
05-31-2005 8:16 AM


A couple of other examples...
Here are two other newsworthy stories along the same lines as what we are discussing:
National Alliance writes:
No Religious Book Reports
"Pen and paper weren't enough for 11-year-old Elizabeth Johnson to do her book report. She needed a lawyer. Sixth-grade teachers at Peak to Peak Charter School initially rejected Elizabeth's choice of the biblical Book of Exodus for her report.
The Boulder Valley School District (Colorado) changed its stance after an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which specializes in religious-freedom issues, threatened to bring a civil rights suit.
Robert Corry, the Denver-based attorney
who represented Elizabeth, said schools can't discriminate against religious statements if they make an assignment involving expression. 'They have to treat religious speech the same way as every other kind of speech,' Corry said.
Teachers said that the Bible might offend other students of different religions. The
girl was also told not to bring her Bible to school." (Rocky Mountain News. 12/13/02.)
The issue, as I see it, is that if a school can allow certain types of beliefs(be they religious or non-religious) to be brought forth means that a school cannot discriminate against MY beliefs.
Libraries & Religious Rights
"A Florida city has agreed to allow free use of a community meeting room for a discussion on America's Christian heritage. Twice last year, Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal defense organization, applied for permission to use the community room in the Dunedin Public Library for the presentation, but was told the presentation could not be held because of its religious nature. A federal lawsuit was filed and, as Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver explains, the lawsuit has now been settled.
'The city attorney stated (originally) that the city strongly believes in the separation of church and state and operates its facilities accordingly,' Staver says. 'Well obviously, after reading the lawsuit, he changed his mind-and now the library has settled the case. The library settlement results in the repeat of the policy, and now Liberty Counsel will be able to use the facilities.' Staver says many cities nationwide have similar unconstitutional policies. The settlement in Dunedin, he says, sends a strong message. 'People of faith can't be treated as second-class citizens,' the attorney says. 'You can't discriminate against people's viewpoints solely because of its Christian character or nature. Any public facility open to the community for various kinds of discussion or meetings cannot slam the door on people of faith. The First Amendment was primarily designed to protect freedom of religion.'" (Agape Press. 3/18/03.)
Notice how the threat of a lawsuit causes the library to back down? That is because that after reviewing the evidence, they knew that they were in the wrong!
What you guys do not see is that I have had to sit through assemblies about Buddism or Hinduism under the guise of "cultural education" and then heard that Christian expressions were banned due to endorsement of religion. You can't call one "cultural" and call another "religious"!
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-31-2005 11:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2005 8:16 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-31-2005 1:32 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 240 by Silent H, posted 05-31-2005 6:52 PM Phat has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 237 of 256 (212840)
05-31-2005 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Silent H
05-31-2005 12:21 PM


Re: For those looking at theocracy driven by Judges...
The point is that the government is never neutral about religion. They are either overly FOR it, (which does not bother me) or they are attempting to be against free expression of it.
Philosophically, a gvernment is never neutral on any governing belief. They either hold one truth or another to be self evident.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Silent H, posted 05-31-2005 12:21 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Silent H, posted 05-31-2005 7:11 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 244 by nator, posted 05-31-2005 11:21 PM Phat has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 238 of 256 (212844)
05-31-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Phat
05-31-2005 1:12 PM


Please go to ACLU topic
Phat, I think I agree with you, but it's still pretty off-topic here.
Track down that American Civil Liberties Union topic. That's a better home for this line of discussion. I think the ACLU would agree with you also.
Moose
Added by edit: Link back to a message in this topic while you're at it.
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-31-2005 01:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Phat, posted 05-31-2005 1:12 PM Phat has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 239 of 256 (212900)
05-31-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Silent H
05-31-2005 12:11 PM


In any case, your original position (before this post) was that anyone at a public school event was a "representative".
We're off-topic, but that has never, ever been my position. For instance the audience at a graduation is not a representitive of the school.
Once again I point out that the same thing happens at dances and parties and other such events.
You had speeches at your school dances? Geez, where did you go, Boring High?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Silent H, posted 05-31-2005 12:11 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Silent H, posted 05-31-2005 6:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 240 of 256 (212904)
05-31-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Phat
05-31-2005 1:12 PM


Re: A couple of other examples...
Moose is right that these seem like good cases. My only issues would be secondary:
1) What kind of book was the girl supposed to be reviewing?
2) How would she review an admitted collection of books?
3) Was she actually reviewing it, or going to use it to proselytize the religion?
As far as the latter one...
4) Fundies have been using gov't buildings to put on fake exhibits and shows purporting to show that the US gov't had a Xian foundation. They do this to lend credence to their position. If the "America's Xian Heritage" symposium was on that, rather than a truthful examination of Xianity in America's culture, then I might have been against it.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Phat, posted 05-31-2005 1:12 PM Phat has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024