US Court upholds 10 Commandments on public land

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Rooster7 writes:

What powers do you possess that enables you to decipher the unspoken motives of others?

 

Unspoken? Lots of legislators came right out and said so.

 

Regardless, its the impact/outcome on the collective group that should drive the Constitutionality of such matters, not the motivation of specific individuals or subgroups.

 

I don't think constitutionality should be based on situational ethics.

 

For example, if I believe I have a religious right to procreate, the federal government shouldnt hinder my access to public health care. They should not be questioning my motives or how I came to the door of a public clinic. Its my business, not theirs.

 

Sounds reasonable to me; hope you also defend e.g. the rights of minors to not procreate and get an abortion without having their motives questioned or how they came to a public clinic.

 

By your reasoning, if one can prove that an individual gains a religious benefit by some government sponsored event, facility, practice, etc., then the government has a duty to cease its participation in such an event, facility, practice, etc.

 

That's not the reasoning I'm using at all. I'm saying the government should be neutral.

 

So if one person can claim that lunch is their religious right then by your reasoning, the public schools should stop serving lunch.

 

No, by my reasoning, the government has to have a legitimate, nonreligious reason to serve lunch. Fortunately, they do. However, people who claim they have a religious right to, say, a kosher lunch do not obligate schools to serve only kosher lunches.

 

Merlyn adds: And if adding one moment of silence is OK, why not add 3 or 4? Is there something wrong with that?

 

Because as a practical matter, interrupting the school day multiple times for moments of silence would be counterproductive to the collective group.

 

Why is one interruption the magic number that's permitted?

 

On the other hand, one can argue that starting the day on a moment silence will allow/encourage the collective group (regardless of individual motives or desires to pray, meditate, or whatever else one can do during a moment of silence) to start the day more focused and committed.

 

But around lunchtime is too much? Not beneficial? Looks completely arbitrary to me.

[skeptic]

Still waiting for a response regarding the "Day of Silence", in relation to this subject. Why was that okay, but a generic "moment" is not? Or, is it somehow okay, because it is PC?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Which public school(s) had a day of silence as part of the official school day, skeptic?

[skeptic]

Well, here are a number of links related to this year's activity. While the supposed reason is to protest bullying in general, its focus is on the GSA and other related organizations' agendas. While they supposedly make it an optional activity on the schools, the fact that they are allowed to have assemblys and pass out literature is tacit approval by the schools involved. What is worse, at least in the cases shown below in Seatle and Sacramento, students and parents who protested were harassed and even punished; this is a violation of the their rights in favor of those of the "day of silence" participants. And, frankly, a large percentage of the students who are involved are simply using the event to avoid their studies and socialize.

 

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2291.html

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/eastsidenews/2004374870_dayofsilence26e.html

 

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/news.aspx?id=87161

 

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/2236.html

 

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070426/27090_'Day_of_Silence'_Protesters_Defended_After_School_Suspensions.html(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Your first link doesn't have any official school connections, just students and public figures promoting the day of silence.

Same with your second link; it says a gay-straight alliance sponsored it.

Your third link even explicitly says that school administrators are NOT involved in sponsoring the day of silence.

Your forth link doesn't indicate any official school sponsorship.

Your fifth link says the day of silence is sponsored by GLSEN, not the school. School officials do appear to have violated students' first amendment rights, but they didn't conduct the day of silence.

 

So none of your examples are of a public school conducting the day of silence as part of the official school day.

[evmori]

This is from the 2nd link.

 

Some students and parents had complained to the school board earlier this spring that the two previous Days of Silence at Mount Si had coerced participation and subjected to harassment students who wanted to stay neutral.

 

Some teachers also chose to remain silent, drawing objections from students who said they were there to learn. Otherwise, last year's event occurred largely without incident.

 

Administrators directed teachers to teach this year and said that students should respond if called upon in class.

 

Seems like the teachers and administrators were involved to some extent.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Doesn't look that way looking at the other links to archived stories, Ed. They say the gay-straight alliance club sponsored it.

[evmori]

I would agree, Merlyn, but it only takes one!

[skeptic]

Simply allowing the groups to sponsor the event on campus is tacit approval of the intent. Allowing special assemblies requires school officials to approve the activity.

 

The real point is not that encouraging less bullying and ill treatment of students for any reason isn't a good thing; but the methods and focus are not consistent with that. They specifically are focussed on a specific group of individuals; and non-school advocates are directly involved.

 

Merlyn; it is interesting that you admit it appears some students rights were violated. Yet, you are still unwilling to admit it is directly related to the approval, direct, or indirectly, by school officials.

 

The door swings both ways.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

skeptic writes:

Simply allowing the groups to sponsor the event on campus is tacit approval of the intent.

 

Wrong; students and student-run groups have first amendment rights. There are all kinds of such groups, including ones for praying, like 'see you at the pole' groups. Schools don't make them part of the official school day, either, and they can't.

 

Allowing special assemblies requires school officials to approve the activity.

 

That depends; if school facilities are available for student groups to use, student groups can use them to exercise their first amendment rights.

 

The real point is not that encouraging less bullying and ill treatment of students for any reason isn't a good thing; but the methods and focus are not consistent with that. They specifically are focussed on a specific group of individuals; and non-school advocates are directly involved.

 

What's the point of your real point? Students have first amendment rights, including political speech and actions. They can even be part of national organizations.

 

Merlyn; it is interesting that you admit it appears some students rights were violated. Yet, you are still unwilling to admit it is directly related to the approval, direct, or indirectly, by school officials.

 

No, it isn't related. Students have first amendment rights to say what they like about homosexuality, whether it's positive or negative. School administrators can't punish either one. Yet you seem to want to suppress students speaking out in support of gay students, but you're very defensive of those criticizing homosexuality.

 

The door swings both ways.

 

That means gay-straight alliances can hold a day of silence, right?

[skeptic]

Merlyn;

 

Rights are only viable when they do not infringe on those of others. When they do, they are license. Neither form should be allowed if it cannot be done equibly. Again, the intent, to stop any form of bullying, is commendible; but since it has become predominently focussed on one specific group, and is spear-headed by non-student advocates, it is no longer something that should occur.

 

By looking the other way and tacitly approving an activity, the school, a symbol of authority, becomes implicit in the activity. And, when some educators express their point of view during this event, they are over stepping their place, as this is a "public school". They do not have the right to directly or indirectly support certain PC points of view, since, as you have noted more than once, they are authority figures.

 

My point is on the table; but I realize that you will evade it, or trivialize it, because only your perspective is important or viable. I will let you argue with someone else now. Have fun.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

skeptic writes:

Rights are only viable when they do not infringe on those of others. When they do, they are license. Neither form should be allowed if itcannot be done equibly. Again, the intent, to stop any form of bullying, is commendible; but since it has become predominently focussed on one specific group, and is spear-headed by non-student advocates, it is no longer something that should occur.

 

Sorry, first amendment rights aren't subject to your whims on what's proper or not. A day of silence doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Students are perfectly free to advocate political positions, even narrow ones, even one you may disapprove of.

 

By looking the other way and tacitly approving an activity, the school, a symbol of authority, becomes implicit in the activity.

 

So you'd also outlaw "see you at the pole" meetups, and the fellowship of christian athletes?

 

And, when some educators express their point of view during this event, they are over stepping their place, as this is a "public school". They do not have the right to directly or indirectly support certain PC points of view, since, as you have noted more than once, they are authority figures.

 

Are you saying teachers can't come out in favor of "PC" political positions like being against racism?

 

My point is on the table; but I realize that you will evade it, or trivialize it, because only your perspective is important or viable.

 

No, I don't evade it. I pointed out that none of the URLs you posted were examples of public schools running a day of silence as part of the school day. I pointed out that students have first amendment rights to voice their opinions, either for or against homosexuality, yet you want to limit the rights of students who have political opinions you dislike. I, on the other hand, defend the first amendment rights of ALL students, regardless of their political opinions.

[evmori]

Sorry, first amendment rights aren't subject to your whims on what's proper or not.

 

I had to pull myself off the floor after that line! I'm still crying from laughing so hard!

 

You do the exact same thing, Merlyn! Pot meet kettle!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

As usual, Ed offers no examples of his claims.

[Trevorum]

 

As an aside to the original 10 Commandments thread, I was tremendously disappointed to learn that the FSM monument on the courthouse grounds in Cumberland County, Tennessee was just temporary. It was removed on May 1.

 

Maybe they'll rotate to the IPU or Xenu.