To any atheists out there...

[Michchamp]

http://espn.go.com/high-school/story/_/id/5467167/mich-school-practices-11-pm-4-am/
according to this, it's public
http://www.trulia.com/schools/MI-Dearborn/Fordson_High_School/

I don't see this as an establishment of state religion.

the supreme court has defined standards to determine when something is merely an accommodation (which is constitutional), and when something crosses the line.

in this case, I don't know.

another example is allowing Amish kids to forgo public education & standards, since pretty much everything we do clashes with their religion. they have expressly ruled that the Amish can do their own thing. I thought that was a little more egregious.

really though, even if something is technically unconstitutional, as the phrase "Under God" clearly is, I feel that courts tend to look the other way as long as it's not too far outside mainstream American society, or if it is, the groups practicing it are small in number or relatively isolated.

 

[Michchamp]

Mitch[/color]]And this from 2002:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/27/us/jud....ted=a ll&src=pm

that's as close as you can come to a ban, but that article was from 2002, and I happen to know it was never enforced because the Supreme Court overturned the 9th circuit on appeal.

You're confusing calls to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, with an actual ban put in place by a legal ruling, or a legislative act.

 

[Michchamp]

Mitch[/color]]Just one quick Google and the first link:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/08/progressive-group-in-mass-calls-for-pledge-ban-citing-no-educational-value/

that entire article is pure propaganda, packed full of weasel words and misleading statements.

"Oh, look at the insensitive atheist with no concerns for the patriotic war veterans or families who lost loved ones on September 11th. How MEAN AND NASTY they must be."

Why didn't Fox go and interview the families of muslims murdered in hate crimes after September 11th to get their take on this? Or the ones that were beaten or attacked on the basis of their religion? wonder if they'd feel any differently about it...

 

[Mitchrapp]

They're out there. When I have more time to find proof I'll link it. But the point is, people want it banned and I don't quite understand.

 

[redandguilty]

Mitch[/color]]And this from 2002:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/27/us/jud....ted=a ll&src=pm

that's as close as you can come to a ban, but that article was from 2002, and I happen to know it was never enforced because the Supreme Court overturned the 9th circuit on appeal.

You're confusing calls to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, with an actual ban put in place by a legal ruling, or a legislative act.

Either way, at the heart of the issue is the fact that they only allow it because they label it "tradition" and "ceremonial". I can certainly see where this would upset an atheist that wants to see a strict following of the letter of the law. To me, this looks like an interpretive ruling and an indication that the whole idea that a defining difference between justices is whether or not they see the Constitution as a living document is BS. I suspect that by that standard, there was a lot of flip-flopping in this case.

...I think I go too far to call that a "fact", but it's probably the reason/justification they use to vote as they do.

 

[Michchamp]

Mitch[/color]]They're out there. When I have more time to find proof I'll link it. But the point is, people want it banned and I don't quite understand.

read the first amendment to the constitution.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Mitch[/color]]Just one quick Google and the first link:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/08/progressive-group-in-mass-calls-for-pledge-ban-citing-no-educational-value/

that entire article is pure propaganda, packed full of weasel words and misleading statements.

"Oh, look at the insensitive atheist with no concerns for the patriotic war veterans or families who lost loved ones on September 11th. How MEAN AND NASTY they must be."

Why didn't Fox go and interview the families of muslims murdered in hate crimes after September 11th to get their take on this? Or the ones that were beaten or attacked on the basis of their religion? wonder if they'd feel any differently about it...

Didn't read it myself. It just seems when God is among the topic, people hate on the Christians. We're overbearing etc. But when Atheists say things, Christians just don't understand. Your world isn't so righteous either.

 

[Michchamp]

that's as close as you can come to a ban, but that article was from 2002, and I happen to know it was never enforced because the Supreme Court overturned the 9th circuit on appeal.

You're confusing calls to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, with an actual ban put in place by a legal ruling, or a legislative act.

Either way, at the heart of the issue is the fact that they only allow it because they label it "tradition" and "ceremonial". I can certainly see where this would upset an atheist that wants to see a strict following of the letter of the law. To me, this looks like an interpretive ruling and an indication that the whole idea that a defining difference between justices is whether or not they see the Constitution as a living document is BS. I suspect that by that standard, there was a lot of flip-flopping in this case.

yep. for Scalia & Thomas, and their strict "textualist" interpretation of the constitution, declaring the phrase "under God" unconstitutional should be a no-brainer.

 

[redandguilty]

Mitch[/color]]They're out there. When I have more time to find proof I'll link it. But the point is, people want it banned and I don't quite understand.

read the first amendment to the constitution.

Read all the amendments and then watch a little Ron Paul and pretty soon you'll be upset about everything. There's significance to the Constitutional things people choose to take issue to. I'm upset we've decided we're cool with locking up terrorists with no trial, even if they're citizens.

 

[Michchamp]

Mitch[/color]]

that entire article is pure propaganda, packed full of weasel words and misleading statements.

"Oh, look at the insensitive atheist with no concerns for the patriotic war veterans or families who lost loved ones on September 11th. How MEAN AND NASTY they must be."

Why didn't Fox go and interview the families of muslims murdered in hate crimes after September 11th to get their take on this? Or the ones that were beaten or attacked on the basis of their religion? wonder if they'd feel any differently about it...

Didn't read it myself. ...

Oh. well, we could have a more informed discussion if you started reading things.

sorry if I got a little heated. I assumed you had actually read the articles you were posting.

 

[Michchamp]

read the first amendment to the constitution.

Read all the amendments and then watch a little Ron Paul and pretty soon you'll be upset about everything. There's significance to the Constitutional things people choose to take issue to. I'm upset we've decided we're cool with locking up terrorists with no trial, even if they're citizens.

me too. don't even get me started.

 

[redandguilty]

Either way, at the heart of the issue is the fact that they only allow it because they label it "tradition" and "ceremonial". I can certainly see where this would upset an atheist that wants to see a strict following of the letter of the law. To me, this looks like an interpretive ruling and an indication that the whole idea that a defining difference between justices is whether or not they see the Constitution as a living document is BS. I suspect that by that standard, there was a lot of flip-flopping in this case.

yep. for Scalia & Thomas, and their strict "textualist" interpretation of the constitution, declaring the phrase "under God" unconstitutional should be a no-brainer.

I no longer remember the key detail, but I remember thinking Bush v. Gore was the same thing. Extreme Liberals judged like Conservatives and extreme Conservatives judged like Liberals. Bush won because more Liberal leaning judges stuck to their guns and judged like liberals.

 

[redandguilty]

Read all the amendments and then watch a little Ron Paul and pretty soon you'll be upset about everything. There's significance to the Constitutional things people choose to take issue to. I'm upset we've decided we're cool with locking up terrorists with no trial, even if they're citizens.

me too. don't even get me started.

Yeah...so much for un-hijacking the thread.

 

[tinselwolverine]

me too. don't even get me started.

Yeah...so much for un-hijacking the thread.

And we haven't even gotten to how Monster should handle Easter.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Tell the in-laws you like Bunny's.

 

[redandguilty]

TinselWolverine[/color]]
[quote="Red and Guilty":2xvxqatg]

Yeah...so much for un-hijacking the thread.

And we haven't even gotten to how Monster should handle Easter.[/quote:2xvxqatg]

Clearly he should embrace the egg hiding and baskets, but also serve spaghetti and meatballs for lunch arranging it on the plate so it looks like a flying Monster.

 

[redandguilty]

How's this for a thread hijack? Not in general, but right now, at this moment is US history, I think we should worry more about separation of business and state than separation of church and state.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I bet lostleader can cook a mean hare stew.

Provided there are any solid bits of the rabbit left after he nails it with one of those giant 30 ot 6 shells...

It's probably already stew after he shoots it, just gather up the bits and warm, I guess...

 

[lostleader]

TinselWolverine[/color]]I bet lostleader can cook a mean hare stew.

Provided there are any solid bits of the rabbit left after he nails it with one of those giant 30 ot 6 shells...

It's probably already stew after he shoots it, just gather up the bits and warm, I guess...

Not a big fan of rabbit. When I first moved to my house in Ohio, I had rabbits everywhere. Now my rabbits are gone, and the Atheists (aka: Coyotes) have slaughtered all my rabbits.

Rabbit over an open flame is great. FWIW

 

[Monster]

Lol wtf.