Flag Burning Amendment

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JW

Any resources used for less important matters takes resources away from more important matters, such as the Patriot Act.

And some donors only give for certain projects. Plenty of them give for the ACLU to defend a seperation of church and state, and any little thing must be fought so that the slippery slope doesn't destroy that goal.

So, basically, to a lot of people that isn't a less important matter to them.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You'll have to ask a Christian why they have to be divisive (again, not ALL Christians), I've never quite understood that myself. A good number of them are intent on sticking their way of life onto other people, and those of us that don't want to live our lives like they do don't like it.

The very same could be said for some secularists. Just substitute 'secularist' for Christian. Joe Cook comes to mind. Reasonable people can make reasonable compromises. The problem here is that, like many issues in modern America, the extremists on BOTH ends and their lawyers drive the issues.

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And some donors only give for certain projects. Plenty of them give for the ACLU to defend a seperation of church and state, and any little thing must be fought so that the slippery slope doesn't destroy that goal.

So, basically, to a lot of people that isn't a less important matter to them.

What slippery slope? In case you haven't noticed, in the past half century the slope has definitely favored those who believe in a rigid definition church-state separation.

I'll just close by repeating what I did to Mr. Bigglesworth. There are compromises that can be made. Unreasonable people on BOTH sides of the issue often refuse to make reasonable compromises.

Mr. Bigglesworth made the point for example of the reasonable accommodation of Jewish holidays by his school board because so many of the students were Jewish and were going to miss school anyway, and I responded that the ACLU has sued against such reasonable accommodation in one district. Who are the extremists in that case?

And is it really reasonable, for example, to try to pretend that a Christmas holiday break isn't really being taken because of Christmas? What the Georgia ACLU apparently wants is for people to PRETEND that the holiday is not about Christmas in that one district. Is that reasonable?

The slope can be slippery on both sides of the hill.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Well, if this does pass, they're basically opening a giant can of worms. Does this mean that anyone 'offended' by a certain thing can move to over-rule the 1st ammendment?

Sure, it's part of our political system. If a 2/3 majority in the Senate and the House both agree to an ammendment that impacts the 1st (and the states ratify it), then that becomes law. I don't know that I agree with this ammendment, but I think the ammendment aspect of our government is an important one.

Now, the thinking is that you won't get a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate for any ole ammendment.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Arles

Now, the thinking is that you won't get a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate for any ole ammendment.

I agree. I find it extremely disappointing, however, nearly all of the recently proposed amendments being pushed these days are intended to deny rights that now exist, or that may possibly exist in individual states in the near future.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JW

What slippery slope? In case you haven't noticed, in the past half century the slope has definitely favored those who believe in a rigid definition church-state separation.

Actually that is not true. Since Lemon v. Kurtzman, the trend has been more accomodationist than the strict seperation of the 70s. It isn't fully accomodationist, but far less seperationist than it was 25 years ago. Cases such as Agostini, Rosenburger, and Good News Club are definetly not seperationist (the last one said that religious groups should be let in for after school programs if other organizations are).

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually that is not true. Since Lemon v. Kurtzman, the trend has been more accomodationist than the strict seperation of the 70s. It isn't fully accomodationist, but far less seperationist than it was 25 years ago. Cases such as Agostini, Rosenburger, and Good News Club are definetly not seperationist (the last one said that religious groups should be let in for after school programs if other organizations are).

I disgree. The fight has been to keep us from going further down the slippery slope toward total exclusion of anything of a remotely religious nature. The Good News Club case is a fitting example. Religious groups have had to fight to ensure that they receive equal treatment and that they are not singled out for exclusionary treatment. Many school and other governmental officials, fearing potential lawsuits, have gone overboard in attempting to eradicate even individual, voluntary expressions of religion from academia and the workplace. You read about these cases all the time, the chilling effect caused by fear of lawsuits that school cannot afford to defend.

Little Jessica brings a Bible story book to school to read during individual story time, and the teacher and principal freak out and prohibit her from bringing the book. Jason wants to mention God in his valedictory speech and the principal prohibits it, saying someone might be offended. The slope is going the way you want right now, not the other way.

[ISiddiqui]

The fight has been to keep us from going further down the slippery slope toward total exclusion of anything of a remotely religious nature.

Actually under seperationist logic of the 70s, things such as equal access cases would have been struck down as violating establishment clause. I think it already hit bottom and the recent cases have been just moving up from that bottom, using the equal access stuff to skirt the establishment jurisprudence.

That is what seperationists are try to do, get back to that bottom again. The slope is favoring the accomodationists the last 25 years, and the seperationists want to prevent the slope from going further that way.

Though with Locke v. Davey, the slope may have been reversed to go back down. But we don't know if it is an outlier or not.

The slope is going the way you want right now, not the other way.

I'm not a strict seperationist. But I disagree. Those examples you've said follow distinctly from the decision of the 70s. The allowing religious groups into schools under equal access, however, does not.

The propaganda indicates that this banning of God in valedictory speeches (etc) is new and thus activist by judges, but they are actually follow decades old precedent.


An example: Bush's Faith Based Aid program.. in the 70s, it would have been quickly and easily struck down. Today, I think it'll stand.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

JonInMiddleGA is right-wing, so people think of him as being libertarian, but in fact his views are more totalitarian. It makes sense for him to support this.

MrBiggle now joins Flasch in making the most idiotic, ignorant posts at FOFC.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

MrBiggle now joins Flasch in making the most idiotic, ignorant posts at FOFC.

you must feel pretty silly considering that joninmiddlega described the very post you quote as a "spot on observation."

edit to add: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...1&postcount=70

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by yabanci

you must feel pretty silly considering that joninmiddlega described the very post you quote as a "spot on observation."

Consider the source.

Here's how I perceive it:
JiMGA is right-wing = true
right-wing is libertarian = false
totalitarian = false

Of course, I knee-jerk whenever someone misrepresents libertarianism, perception or not. Too many people here limit their views along a single spectrum.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Consider the source.

Here's how I perceive it:
JiMGA is right-wing = true
right-wing is libertarian = false
totalitarian = false

Of course, I knee-jerk whenever someone misrepresents libertarianism, perception or not. Too many people here limit their views along a single spectrum.

I think you got mixed up in the equation somewhere, dropped a parenthesis or something.

He said:
-- Most people equate libertarian with right-wing, which I'd say is fair enough (never mind the diff's, that _is_ a common perception).
-- He said Me /= libertarian, Me = Totalitarian (which I later agreed with)
-- At no time do I think anybody said libertarian = totalitarian.

And after all that ... now I'm confused.
I think.
But maybe not, maybe I'm just confused about being confused.

[Buccaneer]

I seem to keep chasing after the tilted windmills of perception. Nothing to see from me so just carry on.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Consider the source.

Here's how I perceive it:
JiMGA is right-wing = true
right-wing is libertarian = false
totalitarian = false

Of course, I knee-jerk whenever someone misrepresents libertarianism, perception or not. Too many people here limit their views along a single spectrum.

Well if my post was the most ignorant in FOFC history, then this must be a close second, because it is making the same point that I was trying to make

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually under seperationist logic of the 70s, things such as equal access cases would have been struck down as violating establishment clause. I think it already hit bottom and the recent cases have been just moving up from that bottom, using the equal access stuff to skirt the establishment jurisprudence.

That is what seperationists are try to do, get back to that bottom again. The slope is favoring the accomodationists the last 25 years, and the seperationists want to prevent the slope from going further that way.

Though with Locke v. Davey, the slope may have been reversed to go back down. But we don't know if it is an outlier or not.


I'm not a strict seperationist. But I disagree. Those examples you've said follow distinctly from the decision of the 70s. The allowing religious groups into schools under equal access, however, does not.

The propaganda indicates that this banning of God in valedictory speeches (etc) is new and thus activist by judges, but they are actually follow decades old precedent.


An example: Bush's Faith Based Aid program.. in the 70s, it would have been quickly and easily struck down. Today, I think it'll stand.

I would still have to disagree. As an educator, and reading the professional material, I believe many administrators are taking action of a preemptive nature just to prevent lawsuits, in many cases heavyhanded action that violates the rights of students. The hypothetical I gave you about the valedictory speech parallels many such cases where students' free speech rights are restricted when they want to mention God, because administrators are afraid of offending someone. I don't believe anyone would argue that a student cannot of his own volition mention God in a valedictory speech that the student writes and delivers himself. I don't recall even the ACLU filing suit in any case like that, but school administrators have acted out of fear of such suits.

I do believe that the perpetually offended are on the ascendancy, and that this bodes poorly for our constitutional rights. And I do believe some ACLU (take the case of the chapter filing suit against the school district that put the Jewish holidays in their calendar) chapters are on what can only be described as a witch hunt against any stray religious reference.

Nevertheless, I recognize that there are those on the religious right who continue to try to inject religion into our schools in an inappropriate manner.

Once again I think we can seek common sense solutions here, rather than having the puritans of both the left and right driving the issues.

I also believe that what you see as crystal clear is not nearly so clear as you make it out. The question, again, is where to draw the line. No right is absolute, nor is the separation of church and state absolute. It is all about where you draw the lines, and today's Supreme Court decision hailed as the final answer might be seen 50 years from now like we view Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson today.

I appreciate the discussion, btw. I typically avoid such discussions on this board for reasons that are obvious, even in this thread.

[ISiddiqui]

Let me recommend a book, Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment by John Witte. It points out the history of both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The Establishment Clause chapters indicate where how the Court has gone from accomodation to strict seperation and back to a neutral position (currently).

On the valedictorian speech, it depends on how it is done. All the cases I've seen involve an almost prayer. That will almost always be struck down, according to Lee v. Weisman because the student is compelled to be there (for all intents and purposes). Also seperationism is greatest in the public schools and has been since the 40s, because it is thought that young minds are impressionable.

Now you say this constant litigation keeps school administrators on their toes. But perhaps that is some of these peoples' intention. You say why don't they focus on important things, but if all the legislation has administrators shaking about allowing anything, isn't it working? They don't have to legislate everything, but enough things to get compliance.

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Let me recommend a book, Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment by John Witte. It points out the history of both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The Establishment Clause chapters indicate where how the Court has gone from accomodation to strict seperation and back to a neutral position (currently).

On the valedictorian speech, it depends on how it is done. All the cases I've seen involve an almost prayer. That will almost always be struck down, according to Lee v. Weisman because the student is compelled to be there (for all intents and purposes). Also seperationism is greatest in the public schools and has been since the 40s, because it is thought that young minds are impressionable.

Now you say this constant litigation keeps school administrators on their toes. But perhaps that is some of these peoples' intention. You say why don't they focus on important things, but if all the legislation has administrators shaking about allowing anything, isn't it working? They don't have to legislate everything, but enough things to get compliance.

I will check out the book.

However, the litigation doesn't just bring about compliance; it promotes an attitude in which administrators often go far beyond the legal requirements and become censors of free speech, in which students for example might be told to draw a Thanksgiving-themed poster of their own design for hallway display but then are told that their poster cannot be displayed because it has a religious theme. (actual case) Or in which a group of students who decide to meet during non-instructional time, i.e., recess, for Bible study, are told they cannot discuss the Bible at school, period. (actual case) So we end up with a chilling effect on free speech.

[SFL Cat]

I do not support this amendment. I love it when liberals burn flags. I especially love it when they burn flags and get media attention while they do it. It just ensures that their power (at least as elected officials) will continue to shrink. I say again, let them burn the flag, and let as many people as possible watch them do it!!!

[dawgfan]

Right, because only liberals burn the U.S. flag...

[ISiddiqui]

Or in which a group of students who decide to meet during non-instructional time, i.e., recess, for Bible study, are told they cannot discuss the Bible at school, period.

If recess is during school hours, chances are the Courts would strike it down as a violation of Establishment Clause (of the chances of it being struck down are greater the lesser in grade you go). Some may go beyond, but this one doesn't.

Btw, you've probably read the 10 Commandment Cases. It was struck down being displayed at the Kentucky Courthouse, but allowed at the Texas State Capitol. The allowance of it at the State House supports my point that the Court is looking at things more accomodationist than 25 years ago.

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If recess is during school hours, chances are the Courts would strike it down as a violation of Establishment Clause (of the chances of it being struck down are greater the lesser in grade you go). Some may go beyond, but this one doesn't.

Btw, you've probably read the 10 Commandment Cases. It was struck down being displayed at the Kentucky Courthouse, but allowed at the Texas State Capitol. The allowance of it at the State House supports my point that the Court is looking at things more accomodationist than 25 years ago.

Your first point, are you saying that students cannot come together on campus at any time and discuss religion? I would say not even the ACLU argues that, since in the case I mention the school did not endorse or encourage the students. What you seem to be saying is that I as a teacher should be constantly monitoring my students to ensure that they don't talk about religion among themselves, even during non-instruction time, such as class change, recess, before and after school, lunch.

As for the split Supreme Court decision, I would also disagree. The court is simply affirming what we have known for more than 200 years, that Judeo-Christian teachings are an important part of our heritage, and that we do not have to pretend that they are not. Thus the ten commandments can be displayed, but not if it is displayed for the purpose of promoting religion rather than for recognizing heritage. One might well argue that the Declaration of Independence should not be displayed because it mentions the deity, and some people have argued as much.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Right, because only liberals burn the U.S. flag...

Sorry, I'll amend my speech. I love it when kooks burn the flag, regardless of their poltical persuasion.

[ISiddiqui]

Your first point, are you saying that students cannot come together on campus at any time and discuss religion?

Yep. And there are cases on point which state that. Good News Club even says, IIRC, that this is ONLY ok because it is an after school activity, not during school hours.

What you seem to be saying is that I as a teacher should be constantly monitoring my students to ensure that they don't talk about religion among themselves, even during non-instruction time, such as class change, recess, before and after school, lunch.

Talking about religion is different than a Bible Study, which does require some classroom accomodation. At least it would in my high school.

The court is simply affirming what we have known for more than 200 years, that Judeo-Christian teachings are an important part of our heritage, and that we do not have to pretend that they are not. Thus the ten commandments can be displayed, but not if it is displayed for the purpose of promoting religion rather than for recognizing heritage.

And in the mid 70s, if people said they were displaying the 10 Commandments for historic purposes in the way Texas had it, it probably would have been struck down. That's why I say the Court is more accomodationalist now than it was 20-25 years ago, and I think most legal scholars (on the right and left) would agree.

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep. And there are cases on point which state that. Good News Club even says, IIRC, that this is ONLY ok because it is an after school activity, not during school hours.


Talking about religion is different than a Bible Study, which does require some classroom accomodation. At least it would in my high school.


And in the mid 70s, if people said they were displaying the 10 Commandments for historic purposes in the way Texas had it, it probably would have been struck down. That's why I say the Court is more accomodationalist now than it was 20-25 years ago, and I think most legal scholars (on the right and left) would agree.

I want to be clear on this. Are you saying that if I as a teacher on hall duty hear two students talking about Jesus in the hall between classes, that I am supposed to tell them to stop? That seems to be what your 'yep' is saying. If I observe a group of Muslim students going thru devotionals during recess, am I to tell them to stop? Are we to monitor our students to ensure that they don't discuss religion with each other at any time during the school day?

And I continue to disagree on the accomodation. There is a tremendous offensive now to remove religious references from public spaces. What you see as an attempt to establish religion is in many cases a backlash against the attempt to cleanse religious references from the public square.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Sorry, I'll amend my speech. I love it when kooks burn the flag, regardless of their poltical persuasion.

hehe, that's a good question though. Are there any cases of Republican/Conservative groups burning the flag?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

hehe, that's a good question though. Are there any cases of Republican/Conservative groups burning the flag?

Plenty. Especially among militia groups.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Dutch

hehe, that's a good question though. Are there any cases of Republican/Conservative groups burning the flag?

No, they just burn crosses.




it's a tasteless joke people, calm down....

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Plenty. Especially among militia groups.

I'm not up to speed on militia groups. ??

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not up to speed on militia groups. ??

I'm actually surprised. Go to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and do some research.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Cringer

No, they just burn crosses.




it's a tasteless joke people, calm down....

See, now I thought that was Democrats too.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Dutch

See, now I thought that was Democrats too.

nixed again.

how about other nation's civilians?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'm actually surprised. Go to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and do some research.

Hmmm, not familiar. Here's some Reuter's shots that are easily found on the internet.

USA - anti-government rally


Gaza City - just for reference


USA - anti-government rally


USA - anti-government rally


Here's one in Russia, where the true leftists reign supreme


Haven't found anybody in Idaho burning flags yet, but if they are anti-government militia's, I'm sure they burn the US flag too, that would make sense.

BTW, There is a great video of some jackass in the middle east setting himself on fire instead of the US Flag. It's nice to see after being bombarded by images of people around the world burning our flag.

[John Galt]

I'm not sure why you see those anti-government pictures as the work of "liberals." Most of them appear to be the product of anti-globalization protesters who don't really fit in the typical right-left spectrum.

And how is one really "bombarded by images" when you actively seek them?

[MrBigglesworth]

According to Dutch:

anti-goverment: obviously liberal/leftist
pro-big government: obviously liberal/leftist

Doublethink is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

According to Dutch:

anti-goverment: obviously liberal/leftist
pro-big government: obviously liberal/leftist

Excuse me - anti-capitalist/free government. Better?