Perry just signed it ... (Howe, Happy: 2013, lawsuits, legal)

[Vic 2.0]

Wow. This is the third thread I've seen on the subject (and the other two were not from the Texas forum).

I agree with the bill itself, because of its content. And I think it's worth noting that the author (Dwayne Bohac) did not start with nor echo Perry's take on the bill. I watched the video in which Perry made the whole thing more controversial than it already was by talking of religion, and then Bohac followed only to talk of political correctness. That's in addition to reading the bill again and finding that it's directly regarding traditional winter celebrations, and also in addition to the fact that the phrase "Happy Holidays" is also protected.

I'm entirely against our schools teaching or promoting religion. But I'm for this bill because I recognize that "Merry Christmas" is NOT an expression of religious faith, despite Perry's little spiel on religion.

So long as we call the day after Wednesday "Thursday" all year long, I see no reason why we can't call December 25th Christmas.

[TexasReb]

Hey, I know I got a little worked up. Sometimes I do that and don't mean to. You are right, I have been doing so many responses lately, I am not always sure who the heck I AM talking to! LOL So anyway...

Originally Posted by 88txaggie

Look, I don't know who you think I am, or what tone you imbued to me, but I didn't attack anyone, nor did I intend to pontificate or lecture. I merely stated my opinion. As to my personal experience - you can look pages upthread where I was indeed required to pray before a faculty meeting at a school by the principal, while an employee. In 1999. So a few years ago, yes.

Fair enough. You have every right to your opinion. I apologize if I indicated different.

But I DO ask What kind of employee were you? A teacher? What school district required you to pray? What sort of prayer?

And you are taking my statements out of context. I didn't say my kids had ever been required to pray. I was speaking to a poster whom I quoted, who long ago was required to pray in school, who also said his classmates had no problem with it.

Ok, again, fair enough. BUT...I call BS on it. That is, no one was ever required to pray in school. Yes, it is true that many, many, years ago, school days were lead off with a prayer, but no one HAD to participate. However, some today seem to make dot connections that can't be connected. That is, a simple bill signed by Perry (and I am not all that big a fan of his, either), that protects kids right to say Merry Christmas.

Here it is:

Texas gov. signs 'Merry Christmas' bill into law

My opinion, which i am entitled to hold, is that people of authority should not publicly lead prayer. I do not want my children to be required to pray in a certain way in a school setting. Attack that if you must, but I'm not sure what I did to cause you such ire.

Perhaps nothing. And I agree people in positions of authority should not require others to pray if they do not want to. BUT...this bill has nothing to do with any of that. Please just read it. The ones going hysterical are those who seem -- for some nutty reason -- that this is going to turn Texas into a theological state that supports the establishment of Christianity as the official state orthodoxy...and that is just plain crazy!!! It is the Christian bashers who are making a big to-do over it.

[88txaggie]

I know that this bill has nothing to do with prayer in school, and I've said several times I have no problem with Merry Christmas - in fact at our present school district we have Christmas trees and a Merry Christmas in lights on the school, LOL. I have no problem with that practice. Not sure that the bill is necessary....but his thread went off topic early, and the discussion was led in the direction of a more broad religion in school topic; it is this to which I responded.

My description of the faculty meeting:

We met after school as a faculty, typical Wednesday faculty meeting. I was an LSSP (school psychology specialist) which I'm afraid you will make a ton of assumptions about, but anyway - The principal asked us to stand, hold hands, and pray - he led the prayer and ended with 'In Jesus' name we pray, Amen'. Doubt it if you will, but it did happen. As I said before - was it required?, not specifically, although it was something like 'let us pray' or something. Would I have been made to feel weird if I didn't participate? Most definitely. There were other things that happened at that school as well, as described on I think page 8 or so. This is why I am pretty passionate about the larger subject, which this thread derailed into.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

It is the Christian bashers who are making a big to-do over it.

Probably so. I'm an atheist and I plan to be on guard when it comes to teachers or other school officials trying to promote religion to my son. It's not that I will have a problem with him learning about Christianity (my wife and I intend to take him to church on occasion for just that purpose), but it isn't the school's place to teach or promote it. But this bill (again, the bill itself, irrespective of Rick Perry's comments) does not appear to protect promotion of religion in the slightest.

[simetime]

Originally Posted by ETex2

We'll probably never know, since I doubt if any federal judge, much less the Supreme Court, will look at repealing it. Talk about stirring up a hornet's nest....

This is what they all need to happen to them

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Bo

Never even heard of this before this thread. Wonder if it's even constitutional.

Office of the Governor Rick Perry - [Press Release] Gov. Perry Signs Religious Freedoms Bill

Originally Posted by ETex2

We'll probably never know, since I doubt if any federal judge, much less the Supreme Court, will look at repealing it.

Why would they? What could possibly make it unconstitutional?

[Bo]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Why would they? What could possibly make it unconstitutional?

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[War Beagle]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

And how on EARTH is this attitude consistent with the attitudes of the founders of TEXAS, never mind the founders of the United States? Not about religion, but about a person's freedom to have their own ideas and practices? This is in direct contradiction to everything that TEXAS was and is supposed to be about. Next thing you know, you'll be advocating non-Texan "nanny laws" to make sure we all profess to believe and behave in the same way, sxrckr!

Wait, come to think of it, you're defending a law that is, if we're completely honest about it, designed for just that reason. Never mind.

It's news to me that the founders' of Texas goal for the country/state was for every tiny minority group to be able to dictate the cultural practices of the 90% minority.I also had no idea that when people say "Merry Christmas" to other people that it is a secret code for "you had better be or become a Christian or we are going to deprive you of your civil rights".

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

It's news to me that the founders' of Texas goal for the country/state was for every tiny minority group to be able to dictate the cultural practices of the 90% minority.I also had no idea that when people say "Merry Christmas" to other people that it is a secret code for "you had better be or become a Christian or we are going to deprive you of your civil rights".

You misspeak.

The goal was not for the minority group to be able to dictate the cultural practices of the 90%, it was for the 90% (or 76% or 51% NOT to be able to dictate the cultural practices of the minority. That's actually the goal of both the United States and of Texas, come to think of it.

And no one says that someone saying "Merry Christmas" is a secret code for anything. That's an attempt to obfuscate the issue, which is that someone representing the government (including teachers) may NOT, per the Constitution, promote the beliefs of one religion over those of all the others.

Let's do a little test. Let's say that the schools start officially having Muslim prayers every day in school and at school-sponsored events and on school grounds because the majority of the people in the area that that that particular school serves are Muslim. You're going to be just fine with that, right? Because the minority should be required to experience, if not actively participate in, the religious practices of the dominant religion?

We have a very good example of what that kind of thinking leads to, right in front of us, these days.
It's called the Taliban. Do we really want to go down that road in the name of Christianity? (Some did that in the past. It was called the Spanish Inquisition. Oh, and the Salem Witch Trials.)

[TexasReb]

THL? I am not going to mince-words here, as you and I know there is not a lot of love lost between the two of us when it comes to our butting heads on certain things. Although I DO think you take it MUCH more personal than I do. Regardless, here is a reply to a postthat, yes, I know, was not directed at me, per se...

=TexasHorseLady;30057502]You misspeak.

The goal was not for the minority group to be able to dictate the cultural practices of the 90%, it was for the 90% (or 76% or 51% NOT to be able to dictate the cultural practices of the minority. That's actually the goal of both the United States and of Texas, come to think of it.

No, WarBeagle doesn't "mis-speak" at all. You are very correct in that the Bill of Rights was intended to protect certain rights intrinsic to classic notions of freedom from a majority tyranny. But your statements above are totally non-applicable. No one is dictating anything at all by this minor bill.

And no one says that someone saying "Merry Christmas" is a secret code for anything. That's an attempt to obfuscate the issue, which is that someone representing the government (including teachers) may NOT, per the Constitution, promote the beliefs of one religion over those of all the others.

No, you are the one obfuscating it. It is really much ado about nothing. Point out just one thing in this minor bunch of bill that goes in the direction you seem to want to scare everybody to death with.

Let's do a little test. Let's say that the schools start officially having Muslim prayers every day in school and at school-sponsored events and on school grounds because the majority of the people in the area that that that particular school serves are Muslim. You're going to be just fine with that, right? Because the minority should be required to experience, if not actively participate in, the religious practices of the dominant religion?

I'll take that silly "test." What a chilling little scenario you twilight zone wrote!!!! The qualification is that to be applicable? Well, hell, it it must point out how the bill does any such thing!

But still? To be fair? I will answer the question myself. And -- as an aside -- I know it might not even be very popular even with my allies on this issue. But still? No, if a muslim populated school district wanted to pray to Allah? On a personal level I wouldn't like it at all...but I can't see a thing about unconstitutional about it. Nobody has to pray to Allah and no one is forced to live in the district. Move!

With that said though? I would object to Christian based prayer being mandated! A moment of silence seems right to me, all the way around.

We have a very good example of what that kind of thinking leads to, right in front of us, these days. It's called the Taliban. Do we really want to go down that road in the name of Christianity? (Some did that in the past. It was called the Spanish Inquisition. Oh, and the Salem Witch Trials.)

Oh c'mon, THL. While I admit this speech of yours is worthy of Citizen Kane and David O. Selznic, it has absolutely zero connection to the analogies you are attempting to make. Good Lord and good gawd and good night and good grief! None of this has anything at all to do with Congress making any law to establish a religion.

I need a beer...