Suing admins for religious persecution

[FlaSoxxJim]

Freedom of Sppech and Expression are protected by the Constitution, unlsee that speech/expression is incendiary.

 

I don't see how weraing a cross can be considered incendiary.

Agreed. And I know there are times when students have been singled out and rebuked, even suspended, for passive religious affectations they were wearing. I don't think anyone on here has said that should have happened in those instances.

[BrandoFan]

You also do me a grave injustice by insinuating I'm out to prove the non-existence of the Big Man on the Cloud, as I am not. His existence/non-existence is simply not a professional concern of mine as a scientist. It doesn't matter one way or the other, though like everyone I have my own personal beliefs on the matter. Similarrly, I am not trying to humuliate anyone with faith. I only I just find it funny when people of faith who, by definition, don't require proof in order to follow a spiritual path try to come up with some sort of proof validating their choice to follow that path. Proof and the search for it, is the realm of the scientist. Faith - and the feeling of it and the following of it - is the realm of the believer who neither requires proof nor is qualified to suggest that they possess any. Ne'er the twain shall meet (unless it's at Denny's over a breakfast skillet).

 

I think PA intended his comment to be tongue-in-cheek, he knows you a'ight.

 

I nonetheless appreciate your allowing me to "like the dong."

 

Man, PA's got a mouth on him or what! Talk about vulgarity reconciled with the Bible.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think PA intended his comment to be tongue-in-cheek, he knows you a'ight.

I'm not so sure. Suggesting I have a desire to humuliate someone because he/she is a person of faith is a bit extreme, and I was taken back by that more than his reference to the dong I may or may not be liking.

 

What, did his computer run out of GREEN?!

[BrandoFan]

I'm not so sure. Suggesting I have a desire to humuliate someone because he/she is a person of faith is a bit extreme, and I was taken back by that more than his reference to the dong I may or may not be liking.

 

I have a hard time believing someone who "knows" your posting style, personality and world outlook/beliefs would come to that asinine conclusion.

 

If PA wasn't kidding, then he's either an idiot or an asshole, or both. I don't think he is either.

 

It's the same with scores of insipid retards who accused me of being a Sox-hater and a troll who is looking for fights over the last few weeks, and would love for me to be banned. I am not about to start proving to those lemmings how many games I go to, or how intensely I root for the team, etc. f*** 'em, let them be wrong to their hearts' discontent.

 

Same here: if after all your posts, on so many subjects, and after myriad clarifications and qualifications you provide when it comes to more controversial matters, people STILL can't/won't see or respect your side, then maybe they aren't worth your time or energy.

 

Just a thought.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If PA wasn't kidding, then he's either an idiot or an asshole, or both.    I don't think he is either.

Of course I do not either. I just know there's a hot and cold to PA like there is a hot and cold to Brando, etc., and the post likely reflected that.

 

Of course I'm the only one here who is gyroscope-steady and lets no one get under my collar...

 

Hmmm... the board needs a greener shade of green...

[JUGGERNAUT]

As an aside note some of you need to be reminded that although this is expected to be a serious forum it is still on a sports site. Trash talking is expected but should be stopped when some one becomes offended.

 

Please continue to weigh in on measures you believe would be useful to getting admins to stop suspending kids who show an allegiance to religion during their non-class time at school. I would like to expand upon this incendiary theme because I'm in strong disagreement as to how to interpret this.

 

From my length study of the founders & the foundation of the articles in the US Const this was believed to be speech inciting riot or rebellion. People might not be aware that at the time the Const was created there were many in America who did not support the revolutionists cause. The revolutionists believed in free speech so long as it did not threaten to dissolve the union.

 

So in my opinion based on my research to suggest that praying a rosary at lunch would somehow approach being incendiary is insane. There's simply no justification for this. It's clearly a bias against kids who believe strongly in the Christian faith & should not be tolerated. No bias should be tolerated against kids of any faith.

 

I would hope that most on this board will agree on that point. The next point I expect there to be disagreement. I do not believe students should be suspended for politcal incorrectness either. However; at a high school age we are still dealing with minors & not adults. In a kid-friendly American state to which we aspire today, censorship is reasonable at that age. Censorship in college is not. College is always suppose to represent a free-thinking exchange of ideas generated from what is being taught. You are no longer a minor when you reach college years.

 

That being said things that are considered non kid friendly on public TV & radio should not be allowed in high school. A child who says something requiring a bleep should be suspended or at the very least serve detention & have their parents notified & require their parents to come to school for talks to lift the detention. That's right I believe a child should serve detention until the parent has made the time to talk to the school.