> You write: "I haven't said that religious people shouldn't use public > facilities. SHOW > ME WHERE? WHERE? It never happened. I have said that a school club > shouldn't be religious. For a public school club to be religious breaks the > separation between church and state." > > Show me where, just once, somebody advocated having a "school club" be > religious? Just once. Where? > > It hasn't happened. > > The original issue was having an existing Christian club use school > facilities with teacher supervision. That is not the same has having a > "school club."
I have stated that if the club wasnt' a school club, sponsored as the art club, the debate club, the sports teams and the play are, then it certainly isn't a violation of the separation of church and state. Perhaps you were misled by my and Nicks' going round and round about what makes a club a school club. At the schools I have worked at and my mother has worked at, only a school club would need a teacher to supervise. > > And because the issue has never been about having the school set up a club, It most certainly has been > then your remarks have been about banning religious groups from using school > facilities. No, they haven't. >And since that is absolutely a violation of the constitutional > rights of the groups (if you're allowing other groups access to the > facilities), then you are advocating making those groups second class > citizens. > > I can't believe how unbelievable stubborn you are on this evidence issue. > Don't you friggin' read my posts? The evidence has always been there. Lock, > stock and barrel. I always quote back every word you write, in every post. > >From the first time this little tiff started, you're words where there in > all their blazing glory. All you have to do is scroll down. I've provided > evidence over and over and over and over and over and over. I've quoted in > in the body of my message, as above, and I've cited your exact points. It > would be humanly impossible to provide any more evidence than I already > have. Quote me. You haven't quoted me once. You choose to extrapolate as you have done above about what my intentions are. > I doubt seriously you were "required" to pray at work. And there is nothing > stopping you from praying your own prayer during that time, or mediating or > shutting your eyes tight and repeat over and over to yourself "I don't > believe, I don't believe, I don't believe." Also, the work place is not a > government place (unless you work for the government, which I don't know if > you do or not), so the boss can pretty much do what he wants. He's not > infringing on your rights because you don't, in a private-work environment, > have any specific religious rights. At least not in the legal sense. And > note my remarks are focused narrowly on the religious issue; there are other > legal issues where statutory regulation makes a difference (such as sexual > harassment, where you have a positive right not to be sexually bothered at > work). I work for a government employee in a government building for a tribal entity, so it would be sticky legally. Nonetheless, I have a right to be as offended as I like at folks imposing their religious beliefs on me at a company party on work time. > > There would also be legal/statutory reasons that a boss could force me to > engage in any religious practice. If you feel you were "forced," meaning -- > "pray or face some consequence," then you should sue. But if it's just a > social gathering where you could pray or not while others prayed, then your > offense is your own problem. The issue is really moot. Its not a social gathering. Its a work party on the clock. I am sure HR would disagree with you, but I wouldn't bother talking to them about it. > > As for twisting my words ... you have a short memory: I pulled this from a > previous post that I haven't yet deleted: > > "I've never said that anybody has suggested that anybody has said: "THAT > CHRISTIANS BE DENIED USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES WHILE OTHER RELIGIONS BE ABLE > TO USE THEM." What I've said is that you and others have said, "Christians > should not be able to use public facilities while other GROUPS (meaning > secular, or non-religious) be allowed to use them." And I have not said that Christians should not be able to use public facilities while other non-religious groups be allowed. I said that public schools can't have school sanctioned religious activities affiliated with them. > This is my quote, with a direct quote from you (the part in all caps, which > you wrote in all caps), quoted in the middle. Now if this isn't evidence of > you twisting my words, then I guess I don't understand English. I mean, you > grossly misstate my position, and then say you aren't twisting words??? So who is twisting words here? ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
