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

[Dan From Smithville]

In this case the school board and parents of that specific district.

So it is not the entire community then, but a subset of it. Presumably, tax payers without children also live near and around the families with students at the school.

 

[Enoch07]

So it is not the entire community then, but a subset of it. Presumably, tax payers without children also live near and around the families with students at the school.

Well of course it would have to parents of children within the school.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well of course it would have to parents of children within the school.

I did not say it did not. I am looking to the extent of what you consider a community to be. We have not even begun to explore how communities are able to circumvent the law in the exercise of their will as being a community.

In your view then, a community is whatever direct group of people involved and effected by the issue. Being a tax payer is not nearly direct or important enough to be included in the community? Unless, you are a tax paying parent of a student or a tax paying school board member?

Somebody from nearby Gnadenhutten would have no say in the matter?

 

[Enoch07]

I did not say it did not. I am looking to the extent of what you consider a community to be.

Its pretty simple. No need to make it complicated. In that matters of school. It would be the parents of the kids on that district.

In the matter of say putting a 10 commandment at a city hall for instance it would be all tax paying citizens within the city limits.

In the matter of the same in a courthouse, then the community is considered all tax paying citizens of that county.

Dunno why you find that so hard to understand.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What if a community decides that killing every third person is OK? Since it is the will of the community it is all good?

And in another thread we see where the community wrongly and unjustly decided LGBT teens cant meet. Thats why communitarian politics are ****. People inevitably get trampled.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And in another thread we see where the community wrongly and unjustly decided LGBT teens cant meet. Thats why communitarian politics are ****. People inevitably get trampled.

It was the will of the community that young girls and women be burned for being witches. Its all good. The will of the community is one of those vague and vacuous ideas that allows an answer that is not an answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Its pretty simple. No need to make it complicated. In that matters of school. It would be the parents of the kids on that district.

That is your definition in order for you to feel you win your argument. It is not THE definition and many could apply.

In the matter of say putting a 10 commandment at a city hall for instance it would be all tax paying citizens within the city limits.

It would be the voting age citizens within the city limits to begin with, but on the constitutionality of an issue, that is not the limit of the community involved. It depends on the extent of the issue involved also.

In the matter of the same in a courthouse, then the community is considered all tax paying citizens of that county.

Again, no. It would be all citizens involved in the issue and this would include those unable to vote or pay taxes, though those unable to vote would not get an official say in the final tally, they still have a voice.

Dunno why you find that so hard to understand.

I do not find what you are posting hard to understand. I do understand what you are saying and posting.

It is a very totalitarian world that you live in.

 

[Enoch07]

That is your definition in order for you to feel you win your argument. It is not THE definition and many could apply.

Nope that is the definition the we have always used in the U.S. Why do you think some states legalized weed even though it's still illegal federally?!?

It would be the voting age citizens within the city limits to begin with, but on the constitutionality of an issue, that is not the limit of the community involved. It depends on the extent of the issue involved also.

Voting age/tax paying same thing basically.

Again, no. It would be all citizens involved in the issue and this would include those unable to vote or pay taxes, though those unable to vote would not get an official say in the final tally, they still have a voice.

People without children don't really have a say in the school district.

It is a very totalitarian world that you live in.

Quite the opposite. I am arguing for freedom of local communities to do what right for themselves. Very anti-totalitarian.

You are arguing for the Federal govt to have a say in all matters no matter how big or small. That is very totalitarian!

You gone all backwards mate!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope that is the definition the we have always used in the U.S. Why do you think some states legalized weed even though it's still illegal federally?!?

The US considers community to mean the parents of children going to a particular school? Really?

Voting age/tax paying same thing basically.

Not really.

People without children don't really have a say in the school district.

They pay taxes. You just said. Same thing. This is in defiance of your own words.

Quite the opposite. I am arguing for freedom of local communities to do what right for themselves. Very anti-totalitarian.

You give a rather black and white view of the situation and totalitarianism is very black and white.

You are arguing for the Federal govt to have a say in all matters no matter how big or small. That is very totalitarian!

I am questioning and challenging your position. When did you become the federal government?

You are defending your position and not very well so far. But let's see if you can pull yourself out. I have faith in you.

You gone all backwards mate!

Sure. Backwards to your argument.

 

[Enoch07]

The US considers community to mean the parents of children going to a particular school? Really?

We already went over this. Try to keep up.

Not really.

Yah, close enough.

They pay taxes. You just said. Same thing. This is in defiance of your own words.

You are conflating 2 different things. We already established this. Why are you mixing them up so easily?

You give a rather black and white view of the situation and totalitarianism is very black and white.

I am not even sure that deserves a response. How does asking for nuance equate to viewing things as black and white? Again mate you've gone upside down and backwards think on me...

I am questioning and challenging your position. When did you become the federal government?

Because separation of church and state is the constitution, a.k.a federal.

You are defending your position and not very well so far. But let's see if you can pull yourself out. I have faith in you.

Considering all the backwards thinking you've exhibited so far I'd have to agree!!

Sure. Backwards to your argument.

Backwards to your own argument...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We already went over this. Try to keep up.

I am keeping up. It is not difficult. We have not gone over it. You just made a new statement claiming and are now claiming that a community is defined as parents of school children. If you are having trouble being clear, just ask. I can walk you through it.

, close enough.

No. Not the same thing at all.

You are conflating 2 different things. We already established this. Why are you mixing them up so easily?

No. You are confused again.

I am not even sure that deserves a response. How does asking for nuance equate to viewing things as black and white? Again mate you've gone upside down and backwards think on me...

You have a very black and white view of the world. There is no nuance in what you present. Things are as you say they are and everyone else is wrong. We established this many threads and some time ago.

Because separation of church and state is the constitution, a.k.a federal.

How does that make you the federal government. I think you are confusing what you believe with what is law and some rather grandiose ideas about your place in the grander scheme of things.

Now you are arguing that there is separation of church and state. Maybe you do not understand what that means.

Where is this law about communities having the final say? Where is this law that defines communities as the parents of children in a particular school? If it is not part of our laws, then why would it even apply? If the Constitution is the basis of the law and you are claiming that it is also the federal government, are you saying that we do not have to follow it? You are all over the place.

Considering all the backwards thinking you've exhibited so far I'd have to agree!!

If you think it is backwards, that is only because my thinking is correct.

Backwards to your own argument...

Questioning you is not an argument. You are very confused. Perhaps it is getting late where you are. We can revisit this when you have had some sleep and a hot shower.

 

[Enoch07]

I am keeping up. It is not difficult. We have not gone over it. You just made a new statement claiming and are now claiming that a community is defined as parents of school children.

For school districts yes.

But not in general.

Remember the city hall/courthouse statements I made?

Nuance!

No. Not the same thing at all.

That's why i said, close enough.

No. You are confused again.

Nope, I can see clearly now the rain has gone!

There is no nuance in what you present.

Sure is see above about city hall/courthouse/school district communities and the difference between them.

How does that make you the federal government. I

It doesn't, I never said it does.

I think you are confusing what you believe with what is law and some rather grandiose ideas about your place in the grander scheme of things.

Nope your projecting maybe.

Now you are arguing that there is separation of church and state.

? Others have been, not me.

Maybe you do not understand what that means.

I understand it succinctly.

Where is this law about communities having the final say?

The bill of rights and the 10th amendment.

If you think it is backwards, that is only because my thinking is correct.

I don't think. I know.

Questioning you is not an argument.

It is with backwards thinking!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For school districts yes.

But not in general.

Remember the city hall/courthouse statements I made?

Nuance!

I remember all the double talk. No nuance. Just double talk.

That's why i said, close enough.

If they are not the same thing, than close enough means nothing. Just as I have demonstrated.

Nope, I can see clearly now the rain has gone!

I can see evasion now, your sincerity has gone.

Sure is see above about city hall/courthouse/school district communities and the difference between them.

There is no nuance. According to you, what you say is right and others opinions are wrong. You consider your word the final say. Very, very, very, black and white.

It doesn't, I never said it does.

Of course you are not, but your writing has been sloppy and made it seem like you were saying that. I was just pointing it out to see if you would recognize the errors. Clearly you are not capable of that.

Nope your projecting maybe.

No. Observations are not projection.

? Others have been, not me.

Then why bring it up?

I understand it succinctly.

I think you do to. That is why there is all this evasion, condescension and double talk from you.

The bill of rights and the 10th amendment.

So now it is States that are the community. Which is it dude?

I don't think. I know.

Well that is honest. I do not think you know either.

It is with backwards thinking!

I am trying to help you with your backward thinking, but you just seem to keep getting worse.

I do not see this as going any further, so I am going to leave this as it stands. I have no doubt that you will come back with some responses that do not reflect the facts. It seems you will keep coming back no matter what the facts are or how accurate I am in dispensing them. I will let you have the last word. It is my gift to you. Carry on.

 

[Enoch07]

I remember all the double talk.

I'm sure you do, you've done a lot of it.

If they are not the same thing, than close enough means nothing.

Close enough!

I can see evasion now, your sincerity has gone.

I can see all the obstacles in my way!

There is no nuance.

If you didn't see things as black and white you would see the nuance!

Of course you are not, but your writing has been sloppy and made it seem like you were saying that.

My writing is not that sloppy!

I was just pointing it out to see if you would recognize the errors.

The only error is in your interpretation.

No.

Yes!

Then why bring it up?

Because its apart of the discussion!

That is why there is all this evasion

Nope the evasion is because you're not debating in good faith. You think I don't see the other post of you talking to other members about how you're "just messing around". I'll give ya 2-3 serious responses after that I don't care anymore because you're just wasting my time. Might as well have some fun with it.

So now it is States that are the community. Which is it dude?

Nuance!

Well that is honest.

Honest is as honest does!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

.

"A Ten Commandments plaque inside on Ohio middle school has finally been taken down.

Before this week, you would’ve seen it as you walk into the auditorium at Welty Middle School in the city of New Philadelphia.

It was apparently a gift from the Class of 1926 and had remained there ever since. But tradition is no excuse for leaving up a Christian plaque that says things like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” and other examples of religious nonsense.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation called on the District to remove the illegal religious display back in April. They even cited a Pennsylvania school that settled a legal battle over an actual Ten Commandments monument in 2017, and had to pay attorneys’ fees of $163,500.

This school in Ohio was heading down that same path unless they fixed this problem.

So that’s exactly what they did. Last week, a lawyer for the District sent FFRF an email saying the plaque had been removed.

That should be the end of the story, but the District’s superintendent [David Brand]

View attachment 30347

IDIOT
​

is apparently furious. He told the Times-Reporter that FFRF basically functioned as bullies, sending a letter from Wisconsin and using “local media to further the issue.”

Both of those statements are idiotic. FFRF didn’t go looking for this case. Someone connected to the school informed them about it and requested their help. And FFRF doesn’t go to the media. The media comes to them.

If Superintendent David Brand wants to point fingers, he should point them at every administrator who allowed the Christian display to remain up over the years.

Brand admitted that Supreme Court rulings are not on his side — so FFRF is right — but then he acted like FFRF was trying to extort money from the schools, which is why he’s not fighting back.

… In addition to funding multi-year litigation, the District will divert staff, time, and energy from the District’s true purpose — student learning. Even more troubling, if the District’s case is unsuccessful as all other school cases have been, FFRF can seek for the District to pay FFRF’s legal fees, which have in at least one instance, exceeded $900,000.00. Clearly, challenging the issue legally would be an enormous risk and burden to the local taxpayers.​

That’s right. It would be risky. It would be a burden. It would be completely irresponsible, too, since what the District is doing is illegal.

Brand should be thanking FFRF for helping them avoid litigation, not blaming them for noting the problems with a gift that should have been refused nearly a century ago."
source

.​

To cut through all the evasion and double talk that has been offered by others, the First Amendment and the rulings of the Supreme Court are clear and religious symbols cannot be placed in public schools. It does not matter whether the source of the funding is for those symbols is public or private. Where do people come up with silly ideas like that?

Relying on the idea that some ambiguous entity called "community", with no clear definition as to what that is, should be the final arbiter is no defense either. In the event this defense is offered by passing the buck to the "community", the display would still have to be defensible under the Constitution if challenged. It must also be noted that the source says this "Someone connected to the school informed them [FFRF] about it and requested their help". So someone in one very strict definition of community did make a decision. Weak defenses relying on "community" decision are thus nullified.

Brand can rant all he likes, but he cannot reverse the rules of law in this country just to appease his personal feelings. Neither can a group of people do that or we might as well toss the Constitution and our laws right out the window. I would point out that this in no way promotes "big government" since the dismissal of our laws would result in no real government at all, big or small. Another silly idea brought to bear against the rule of law that does not hold water.