The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[Hatin Since 87]

The point, is that just because "Hatin" says it, doesn't mean it is correct in law or by common convention. Prayer is generally not allowed in secular schools because it was litigated.

Persons not of a faith objected to the right to "freely" practice said faith.

It is somewhat humorous to see a protestant rebuking a non-practioner for criticizing their faith when the establishment of their religion was a direct result of criticism of the RCC in 1517.

Weird, I wonder why our high school team has a group of kids that kneel and pray before every game then? I wonder why when I was in school in 2006 we were allowed to pray then? Maybe it’s that whole freedom of religion thing, where government (public schools) can’t prevent anyone from practicing their religious beliefs. Strange. Try again, dude.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-merry-christmas-whats-allowed-and-forbidden/

 

[Alpo]

Engel v Vitale. Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe

 

[nonobaddog]

Anyone can tell a muslim they are doing islam wrong because if they are doing islam at all they are doing something wrong.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Engel v Vitale. Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe

I don’t think those say what you think they say... neither ban students from praying at school. They do, however, ban faculty from forcing students to hear prayer on school grounds. Sorry, but you failed. Try again, dude.


Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.




Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe
[FONT=&amp]The prayer took place on school property, at a school-sponsored event, and was broadcast over a school-owned loudspeaker that was controlled by school officials, to a crowd in a school-owned stadium filled with school insignias. The election was sponsored by the school and would allow a majority of the student body to subject minority views to constitutionally improper messages. Additionally, for some students, like the players, cheerleaders, and band members, attendance is mandatory.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Stevens also applied the coercion test announced in Lee. Under that test, students should not be faced with the choice of not attending or attending and hearing a personally offensive religious ritual. Stevens argued that the elections did not relieve the school district of responsibility, since the election itself was created by the school, using the student body as the electorate. Religious matters should not be allowed to depend on majoritarian rule.



[/FONT]

 

[Hatin Since 87]

The point is, just because “Alpo” says it doesn’t mean it is correct by law or by common convention.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You can say whatever you want, but you can’t tellme what I can and cannot do based on your opinion. I would say that’s hating freedom.

The original statement was should/shouldn't not can/cannot. But yes the govt does it all the time. MJ (and other substances) use is just one example.

Ok, so admit you care since you keep coming back.

As far as your extreme examples of “human sacrifice” goes... wouldn’t that be affecting someone else’s freedom? Pretty sure that’s where the line is drawn. You can’t preach the morality of someone’s political decisions based on their faith when you don’t even accept their faith. Try again, dude

If the person agrees with being sacrificed, how would that effect someone else freedom? Wouldn't prohibiting it be infringing upon their freedom? How about assisted suicide?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

The original statement was should/shouldn't not can/cannot. But yes the govt does it all the time. MJ (and other substances) use is just one example.



If the person agrees with being sacrificed, how would that effect someone else freedom? Wouldn't prohibiting it be infringing upon their freedom? How about assisted suicide?

Assisted suicide has been deemed legal in some states if I’m remembering correctly? As for the sacrifice, I don’t really have a clear answer. I mean, that would open a can of worms I don’t think we would want to open. Murder someone? “They told me it was ok to sacrifice them and my religion gives me the ok to do so”.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The original statement was should/shouldn't not can/cannot. But yes the govt does it all the time. MJ (and other substances) use is just one example.



If the person agrees with being sacrificed, how would that effect someone else freedom? Wouldn't prohibiting it be infringing upon their freedom? How about assisted suicide?

That's a mighty big IF. Historically, I believe those being sacrificed were either captured prisoners or young virgin females, unable to contest their sacrifice. I don't think any (or at least many) were agreeable to being sacrificed.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Assisted suicide has been deemed legal in some states if I’m remembering correctly? As for the sacrifice, I don’t really have a clear answer. I mean, that would open a can of worms I don’t think we would want to open. Murder someone? “They told me it was ok to sacrifice them and my religion gives me the ok to do so”.

I believe you are correct in a very few states. But doesn't that open the same can of worms? They told me they wanted to end it so I did...

That's a mighty big IF. Historically, I believe those being sacrificed were either captured prisoners or young virgin females, unable to contest their sacrifice. I don't think any (or at least many) were agreeable to being sacrificed.

Oh I agree it's a big if, but I could see some doing so. Especially if in an assisted suicide like manner. They wish to end their pain/suffering but wish to serve their religion while doing so.

 

[nonobaddog]

That's a mighty big IF. Historically, I believe those being sacrificed were either captured prisoners or young virgin females, unable to contest their sacrifice. I don't think any (or at least many) were agreeable to being sacrificed.

Same with late-term and newborn babies, many of which can't sign the sacrificial agreements because they have not mastered writing yet.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I believe you are correct in a very few states. But doesn't that open the same can of worms? They told me they wanted to end it so I did...

Doubtful, it’s quite a bit different. A sacrifice isn’t performed in a hospital with signed waivers and medical experts. Assisted suicide is. It isn’t like my friend is gonna put a bullet in my head and get away with telling the courts it was assisted suicide.

Besides, if someone wants to commit suicide they will however they can. All it takes is a bottle of aspirin or a rope. Doing to yourself isn’t the same as doing to others. If it was I would’ve been a pimp in high school

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Same with late-term and newborn babies, many of which can't sign the sacrificial agreements because they have not mastered writing yet.

As someone who was once a fetus, I agree.

 

[Alpo]

I don’t think those say what you think they say... neither ban students from praying at school. They do, however, ban faculty from forcing students to hear prayer on school grounds. Sorry, but you failed. Try again, dude.


Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.




Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe
[FONT=&]The prayer took place on school property, at a school-sponsored event, and was broadcast over a school-owned loudspeaker that was controlled by school officials, to a crowd in a school-owned stadium filled with school insignias. The election was sponsored by the school and would allow a majority of the student body to subject minority views to constitutionally improper messages. Additionally, for some students, like the players, cheerleaders, and band members, attendance is mandatory.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Stevens also applied the coercion test announced in Lee. Under that test, students should not be faced with the choice of not attending or attending and hearing a personally offensive religious ritual. Stevens argued that the elections did not relieve the school district of responsibility, since the election itself was created by the school, using the student body as the electorate. Religious matters should not be allowed to depend on majoritarian rule.



[/FONT]

Stayed in a Holiday Inn Express, didja? Read the opinion and dissent. Any magpie can restate Wikipediatrics.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Stayed in a Holiday Inn Express, didja? Read the opinion and dissent. Any magpie can restate Wikipediatrics.

I read the case. Both. I pasted the parts that were important, nothing banned students praying. It only banned schools and school faculty from forcing students to hear prayer. Again, you failed. Try again, dude.

If youre so certain it bans students from praying, why not paste the part where the courts ruled that with a source, dude?

i take it golden girls is over?

 

[jamil]

Herr Kut disapproves. I'm still trying to figure this one out.

 

[Alpo]

I read the case. Both. I pasted the parts that were important, nothing banned students praying. It only banned schools and school faculty from forcing students to hear prayer. Again, you failed. Try again, dude.

If youre so certain it bans students from praying, why not paste the part where the courts ruled that with a source, dude?

i take it golden girls is over?

The wife wanted to make love.

 

[Alpo]

I had to call her an Uber to take her to her boyfriend's.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I had to call her an Uber to take her to her boyfriend's.

Uber is kinda expensive for a few minutes of pleasure. Considered ordering a companion from amazon?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The way to stigmatize a political belief by attaching the word "denier" to it is ****ing retarded. One of the more insufferable things about modern politics.

Really should be used against people that chant about men being women, men menstruating, etc... that's actual science denial.

The single-payer deniers are a lot like the climate deniers. A thousand objections, and whenever you meet 1, they have a new one, even as the status quo has us on a collision course with catastrophe. What is the plan these people have in the alternative?

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1190441085228716032

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The way to stigmatize a political belief by attaching the word "denier" to it is ****ing retarded. One of the more insufferable things about modern politics.

Really should be used against people that chant about men being women, men menstruating, etc... that's actual science denial.



https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1190441085228716032

I'm a democrat denier. I will forever deny them even one of my votes. Even after I'm dead. I may put it in the fine print at the bottom of my headstone.