Idiot Public School Superintendent Upset Because He Can't Display The 10 Cs

[metis]

Only when the school pays for the religious plague/statue/whatevs.

If a community of private citizens pays for it, and the school board voted to allow it. It's perfectly legal.

No, it is not, and we've seen numerous cases on this, including in the city where I live. If you were to be correct, then our schools would be flooded with religious items because there will always be someone who will finance them.

 

[Enoch07]

No, it is not, and we've seen numerous cases on this, including in the city where I live. If you were to be correct, then our schools would be flooded with religious items because there will always be someone who will finance them.

No, because it's up to the community to decide. If the consensus is they don't want it then it doesn't go up. But if the community as a whole wants it then it can be used.

 

[metis]

\

Actually, it is legal:

View attachment 30384 View attachment 30385

Which makes your OP quite stupid.

Sometimes they are allowed because they are considered "grandfathered" in, thus having historical value-- like me.

 

[PureX]

It's not being taught though.

Of course it is; via 'promotion'. Which is exactly WHY they were put up in the school in the first place, and is exactly WHAT the separation of church and state intends to avoid.

 

[metis]

No, because it's up to the community to decide. If the consensus is they don't want it then it doesn't go up. But if the community as a whole wants it then it can be used.

Again, false. "No-- technically, religious decorations are not allowed in public school classrooms under federal law in the United States." [Google "Are religious symbols allowed in public schools" + there's numerous links]

Since I taught in public education for 36 years, including a poli sci course for 25 years, I went through this entire routine.

 

[Skwim]

\

Actually, it is legal:

View attachment 30384 View attachment 30385

Stupid conclusion; they're just overlooked, purposely or otherwise.

According to the First Amendment they're illegal.

Which makes your OP quite stupid.

No, it simply shows how Christianized our government is. If your examples have been brought to the attention of our government and nothing has been done about them, it's because our government turns a blind eye to the dictates of the first amendment because it's afraid of Christian America, AND many in congress simply don't care enough about it. Nothing new, just disappointing.

.

.

 

[Enoch07]

Of course it is; via 'promotion'. Which is exactly WHY they were put up in the school in the first place, and is exactly WHAT the separation of church and state intends to avoid.

It was put up in 1926. Not a whole lot of atheist running around back then so your theory of it being promotional falls flat.

Regardless it's up to the local community to decide these things, not you.

 

[Enoch07]

Again, false. "No-- technically, religious decorations are not allowed in public school classrooms under federal law in the United States."

It wasn't in a classroom.

 

[columbus]

It was put up in 1926. Not a whole lot of atheist running around back then so your theory of it being promotional falls flat.

Regardless it's up to the local community to decide these things, not you.

You mean,
kinda like when local communities, back in 1926, decided to lynch black guys? It's up to the local community to decide these things?
Tom

 

[metis]

It wasn't in a classroom.

It doesn't make a difference which room, hallway, or anything outside that's on the school property. Nor does it make a difference who pays for it.

However, there are some exceptions, for example when I taught a comparative religions class for two years I used various religious symbols being displayed as part of the course. Also, we had a school policy of celebrating various religious and secular holidays, and we never got in any trouble with that since the rule of thumb is "all inclusive or all exclusive", according to the courts.

 

[PureX]

It was put up in 1926. Not a whole lot of atheist running around back then so your theory of it being promotional falls flat.

This issue has nothing to do with atheism or atheists. It's about maintaining the separation between church and state. And that requirement was as legitimate in 1929 as it is today. The plaque should never have been put up, and it's high time they corrected that. Now they have. End of story.

 

[Enoch07]

You mean,
kinda like when local communities, back in 1926, decided to lynch black guys? It's up to the local community to decide these things?
Tom

Bit of a false equivalency there eh?

I may not be black but I think hanging black folk is lot more harmful than hanging a 10 commandments plaque.

 

[columbus]

Bit of a false equivalency there eh?

I may not be black but I think hanging black folk is lot more harmful than hanging a 10 commandments plaque.

You proposed that local communities decide how to implement the law. In 1926, all kinds of unConstitutional stuff was going on. Local communities, especially the white Christians, felt entitled to ignore those parts of the law that they didn't like.

That's what you're suggesting here. That local communities can ignore SCOTUS and established law if it doesn't suit their beliefs.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

It doesn't make a difference which room, hallway, or anything outside that's on the school property. Nor does it make a difference who pays for it.

It does unfortunately. It's up to the local community to decide though whether it's for them or not.

Now if you guys wanna be sticklers about federal law overriding states or local govt laws. Then you are giving Trump permission to shutdown states that decriminalized marijuana and start locking folks up according to Federal law.

But hey just remember you asked for it. So bitzing.

 

[Enoch07]

This issue has nothing to do with atheism or atheists.

Its butt hurt atheist whining about a 10 commandment plaque.

Of course it's about atheist.

 

[Enoch07]

You proposed that local communities decide how to implement the law. In 1926, all kinds of unConstitutional stuff was going on. Local communities, especially the white Christians, felt entitled to ignore those parts of the law that they didn't like.

That's what you're suggesting here. That local communities can ignore SCOTUS and established law if it doesn't suit their beliefs.
Tom

It happens now. In Colorado, California and other state that ignore Federal law and decriminalized weed and other drugs.

 

[Kenny]

You know what's ironic about this?
SCOTUS has supported everything from slavery to feticide "rights". But not the 10 Commandments.
I recognize the history of those old decorations, and I'm basically pretty conservative. I'm in favor of keeping all that old stuff. But not pretending that it supports US values or ethics.
If it did, Trump wouldn't be president.
Tom

you are correct, the people certainly have lost their moral compass and that's why we have presidents with illegal affairs saying it wasn't sex, others supporting socialism, self-serving , those who lie, sell favors for personal gain, and take the people for a ride.

Maybe we need to have a revival.

 

[columbus]

if you guys wanna be sticklers about federal law overriding states or local govt laws. Then you are giving Trump permission to shutdown states that decriminalized marijuana and start locking folks up according to Federal law.

I hope he does.

I think it would be an improvement to USA society for Trump to demonstrate that he doesn't believe in personal freedom or states rights, just before the 2020 election.
Tom
Eta ~Maybe the drug gangs and cartels, who make so much money in the black market, would buy a bunch of Pro-Trump media. It worked for Putin.~

 

[Kenny]

Sometimes they are allowed because they are considered "grandfathered" in, thus having historical value-- like me.

or, today's people's make mountains out of a mole hill and its making me loose hair. Where has all my hair gone?

 

[Kenny]

Stupid conclusion; they're just overlooked, purposely or otherwise.

According to the First Amendment they're illegal.


No, it simply shows how Christianized our government is. If your examples have been brought to the attention of our government and nothing has been done about them, it's because our government turns a blind eye to the dictates of the first amendment because it's afraid of Christian America, AND many in congress simply don't care enough about it. Nothing new, just disappointing.

.

.

No... if it were illegal because of the First Amendment, they wouldn't have put that there in the first place.

No, it simply shows how judges stopped being judges and political activist are now promoted in their place and Congress has become self serving while people rewrite history and today's populace has become ignorant..