Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a sorry day, indeed. Definitely time for people of Faith, Families of Traditional Values, Social Conservatives, Constitutionalists to pull your kids from the public schools. The trashing of Christianity and traditional values has been going on for quite a while, although usually snuck in through the literature books, but the door is now wide open for it. Religious freedom is being washed away.
The progressive left will not stop until Christianity is silenced. This is necessary for them to be able to change all the cultural mores & live totally guilt free. They have gotten as far as they have due to their mostly sneaky educational indoctrination. They have come far enough, having infiltrated our courts and taken over our educational systems to feel comfortable taking off their masks. Unless we make a decisive victory in November, the game may be over. Pass the word. Get to the polls. Support your beliefs. Fight the fight.
If only those parents could take their tax dollars with them and apply it towards a private school...
You won't be missed, but I feel sorry for your children. If you want to teach them the earth is flat, the sun and starts revolve around the earth, and that your "god" created everything a few thousand years ago, you and yours will be unable to function. The rest of us prefer to retain the advances in knowledge we've made since the Dark Ages.
Then let us take our money out of the public education system when we pull our kids out.
From what I read of the decision, it sounds like the teacher did a lot of playing the Devil's Advocate and pushing students to contend with various positions. Pretty scary stuff! Probably wants them dabbling in dangerous things like critical thinking.
I bet he's even a snob who hopes they can all go to college ...
Being gay is NOT a belief. It is intrinsic, just like being heterosexual is, or eye color, skin color, sex, race, height, and the like. There is nothing to believe about it other than "it is what it is".
Sex change operations, colored contact lenses, and hair dye aside, clicking your heels three times will not change certain inborn traits.
Political and religious leanings are based on beliefs, generally formed after a great deal of cultural indoctrination of one stripe or another.
As usual, if you get your opinions from radical websites, you're going to get radical interpretations which contain only a modicum of truth, but never the WHOLE truth. You'd think the OP would know better by now, given how many times his carefully spun opinion pieces have been slapped down.
So, let's see if we can do it again:
Here's the 9th Circuit's opinion. Forget all that other stuff which explains the case and concentrate just on this:
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.†U.S. Const. amend. I. The government runs afoul of the Establishment Clause through dispar- agement as well as endorsement of religion. See Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 624 F.3d 1043, 1060 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (Silverman, J., concurring); id. at 1053-54 (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting); see also Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 532 (1993). In this case, a former public high school student alleges that his history teacher violated his rights under the Establishment Clause by making comments during class that were hostile to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular. Mindful that there has never been any prior reported case holding that a teacher violated the Constitution under comparable circumstances, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the teacher is entitled to quali- fied immunity. Because it is readily apparent that the law was not clearly established at the time of the events in question, and because we may resolve the appeal on that basis alone, we decline to pass upon the constitutionality of the teacher’s challenged statements. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815-18 (2009).
Amendment 1 of the Constitution is considered to have been violated if government disparages religion, as well as when it endorses one. However, the decision which set that precedent was not made until 2010, AFTER the events contained in the allegation occurred. Consequently, the court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the teachers behavior in this case because his actions pre-dated that precedent. They neither ruled a teacher has the Constitutional protection to make such comments, or that he doesn't.
The opinion piece posted by the OP is flat out wrong in it's claim that teachers now have Constitutional protection when they disparage Christianity. Either the author of that piece KNEW he was lying, or he's a total idiot who doesn't understand how to read a court decision. In either case, it won't matter to those thirsting for a reason to be outraged. They'll immediately lap it up without question because it feeds their already held prejudices.
And, as for those "liberal" members of the 9th Circuit? This case was heard by 2 Circuit Court justices and a Federal District Court judge sitting in. The two Circuit Court judges, A. Wallace Tashima and Raymond C. Fisher, were appointed by Pres. Bill Clinton and confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate in 1995 and 1999. The District Court judge, Mark L. Wolf, was appointed by Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the Republican controlled Senate in 1985.
It seems that if the 9th Circuit is packed with "liberals," it's the GOP who put them there.
Your last two paragraphs which weren't someone else's words and made little sense since all you were trying to do was to provide proof that GOP controlled Senates okayed the appointments. Nice work but I don't think you have any idea how many justices we would be short if no Senate ever gave permission when Presidents of the other party made appointments. Oh I know what Obamaites say about all this but I don't think that his last two SC Justices would have sailed through a REpublican controlled Senate. They just let the lower ones sail but not so easy with the Supremes.
Yes, I understand the reasoning you were trying to put through on us but I think that few will accept it as real other than some really wild eyed lefties.
It is not right to ridicule a student because of his or her sexual orientation.
It is not right to ridicule a student because of his or her skin color or ethnicity.
It is not right to ridicule a student because of his or her religion.
My question is: was the kid being ridiculed because of his religion - Christianity? The report on this story says the teacher himself is a Christian. Was the teacher also ridiculing himself? I think there is more to this story.
Suppose you are a science teacher discussing the nature of the earth's moon, it's origin and mineralogical make-up and the Apollo moon landings. You have a student who is a fundamentalist Muslim who believes (as I have been told) that the Quran says is it not a planetary satellite but nothing more than "pure light" and non-matter. How do you address the class without insulting the one Muslim student, yet teaching according to all the accepted scientific criteria and the very text-book the students are using? I believe the teacher has a right to stand his ground.
Another question: if the one Christian student feels the teacher was ridiculing Christianity, how did the other students in the class feel about it? Did any other student join in the legal suit against the teacher? Surely there must have been at least one other Christian in the room besides the teacher and the one student?
about who really has freedom of religion and it sure is not any Christian in school. Nope, secularists can say anything they want to to Christian kids about their religion, now.
A precedent in this case has been set, but not the one hoped for. The precedent that was set allows teachers to verbally abuse, ridicule and harass the religious beliefs of any student and they can do so in the classroom in front of other students.
Yet on the opposite side of the issue, courts have upheld restrictions placed on students expressing their religious views in the classroom. They are not allowed to defend their beliefs but are now forced to sit and take the abuse from the faculty.
Freedom of speech and religion now only applies to anti-Christians and Muslims, but not for Christians.
Why do I get the feeling there's a legal basis for the ruling that just went right over the heads of that completely unbiased looking website for which you posted the link?
Your last two paragraphs which weren't someone else's words and made little sense since all you were trying to do was to provide proof that GOP controlled Senates okayed the appointments. Nice work but I don't think you have any idea how many justices we would be short if no Senate ever gave permission when Presidents of the other party made appointments. Oh I know what Obamaites say about all this but I don't think that his last two SC Justices would have sailed through a REpublican controlled Senate. They just let the lower ones sail but not so easy with the Supremes.
Yes, I understand the reasoning you were trying to put through on us but I think that few will accept it as real other than some really wild eyed lefties.
All I'm saying is the the Senate confirmed them. Both the majority and minority parties in the Senate have numerous procedural rules they can use to hold up the nomination of anyone they chose, to pressure a President into offering another pick. They've used that power regularly, but you're suggesting that in the case of those judges, they just decided to let un-qualified judges pass on through?
I doubt that, especially in the cases of the two Circuit judges in this instance. Given the relationship between Pres. Clinton and the Republican Senate, it's more likely that they were compromise choices acceptable to everyone. The point is that since both parties were involved in putting them on the bench, neither party can very well blame the other for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
