Hi y'all - not for the first time, I agree. I chose to come to this country as an immigrant over 20 years ago based on my reading of, and belief in, the constitution. I now find that interpretation is everything. What I thought was clear cut and unimpeachable, I find to be the target of twisted manipulation - just like the bible. yours, disappointed.
On Sep 16, 10:32 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The constitution, let alone some of its amendments came about due to > drastic differences of opinion that resulted in many deaths. It is not > just a nice game to play. If one approaches it that way, as just nice > rules, it will never 'form a more perfect union' and one will see it > continue to be interpreted and/or changed in ways one doesn't wish it > to. > > Roe vs Wade is just one recent example. I have lived during the era > when women were butchered during illegal abortions since all abortions > were illegal. Then, when they were made legal, fanatics intimidated > and in some cases killed those who followed the law. Now, one finds > many states do not provide the service at all due to legal and illegal > intimidation as well as changes to the law. > > Again, it is NOT some nice game to play. > > On Sep 16, 7:59 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Bosco's is the only bar I've been admitted to - and even they give me > > strange looks. :-) > > > I do hope you can join Memphis Atheists there on the 24th! > > > Aaron > > > On Sep 16, 8:59 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi y'all - you must have been admitted to the bar. I'll check out > > > Bosco's. > > > > On Sep 16, 8:53 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > LOL. That's funny! It's important to keep general political issues > > > > separate from strictly constitutional ones, though. The constitution > > > > does not protect us from stupid laws. It just makes sure we follow > > > > the rules of the game. > > > > > In this case, the umpires have ruled that it's okay to have a moment > > > > of silence. Students have a right to pray (silently) during the > > > > moment of silence. The state can even pass laws to protect the > > > > students' right to pray during a moment of silence, but it cannot > > > > favor or discourage prayer during that time (or any other). > > > > > Now, most school districts consider it too much trouble to tread so > > > > fine a line. They have given up the practice altogether. That's > > > > probably the wisest choice. But "the people" aren't always wise. If > > > > there is sufficient political will in our state for a moment of > > > > silence, then the legislature is acting properly to make sure it is > > > > implemented and remains technically in compliance with the Court's > > > > rulings. > > > > > A constitutional challenge is appropriate if we think they've crossed > > > > the line. It's not appropriate just because we think the law is "a > > > > stupid shell held over from the days of school prayer." > > > > > But then, lawyers have never been big on propriety. > > > > > Aaron > > > > > On Sep 15, 2:53 pm, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I agree that it probably is not unconstitutional on its face, but it > > > > > is a thinly veiled attempt at prayer. I think that before or after > > > > > the "moment of silence", as Orn has hinted, you should have the > > > > > "moment of cacophony" or the "pause for pandemonium". Why does it > > > > > have to be silence? Why couldn't everyone just say their piece aloud > > > > > whether it be a prayer, incantation or a series of burps? Get it all > > > > > out your system prior to starting the school day! > > > > > > Preston > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "ornamentalmind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "Memphis Freethought Alliance" > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 2:18 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: Column on a moment of silence > > > > > > Perhaps to test the case, those who do not wish to pray could sing > > > > > songs during that time? Or, as suggested elsewhere start a long and > > > > > loud chanting of ‘OM’? They clearly wouldn't be praying....and, those > > > > > who wanted silence could of course wait for a different time to pray, > > > > > err, have a moment of silence on their own time, not that of the > > > > > taxpayers. > > > > > > I guess one could also go up to each person during the moment of > > > > > silence and say that they were NOT allowed to pray...and ask if they > > > > > were?....At the very least, since it is the law, it could be required > > > > > to give the directive, just prior to the moment of silence, that NO > > > > > ONE was allowed to pray during that time? > > > > > > Of course all of this sounds silly....and that is because the entire > > > > > theater of ‘a moment of silence’ is itself deceptive to the core. > > > > > > On Sep 15, 12:06 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Like I said, there may be something about the law that would cause > > > > > > it > > > > > > to fail a constitutional challenge. If you can prove the state's > > > > > > purpose is to sanction (or discourage!) prayer then the law should > > > > > > be > > > > > > invalidated. But it will take more than the simple fact that the law > > > > > > was changed periodically to make it compliant with Supreme Court > > > > > > rulings. That's fairly routine when the Court hands down a major > > > > > > decision. > > > > > > > Also, how does a moment of silence single out non-religious > > > > > > students? > > > > > > Isn't the whole thing, well, silent? > > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 10:28 am, "Angelia Stinnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > It's descriminary when praying children pray and non religious > > > > > > > children do > > > > > > > not, singling out the non religious and sets them up for possible > > > > > > > abuse from > > > > > > > teachers and other students. > > > > > > > > It's unconstitutional when there is a paper trail that proves its > > > > > > > purpose > > > > > > > was to maintain the provocation of gods in schools. However, it > > > > > > > would be a > > > > > > > hell of a case to argue in Tennessee with all the Jesus toting > > > > > > > politicians. > > > > > > > The moment of silence is what's left of school prayer, as a > > > > > > > result of > > > > > > > lawsuits. When one statute is overruled, the he-haws pass another > > > > > > > one in > > > > > > > state legislation. > > > > > > > > It's going to take me 5 years, but I am going for a law degree > > > > > > > and intend to > > > > > > > change a few things at the Capital. I intend to be the most hated > > > > > > > woman in > > > > > > > Tennessee....with a body guard. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > You are articulate and thought-provoking, Angelia. The strongest > > > > > > > > parts of your column deal with the blatant silliness of the > > > > > > > > "moment of > > > > > > > > silence" you described. The practice doesn't sound effective; > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > fraught with potential for misuse; and it exposes the school to > > > > > > > > unnecessary litigation. > > > > > > > > > I'm not convinced by your legal argument, though. A moment of > > > > > > > > silence > > > > > > > > is not unconstitutional on its face. The Supreme Court case > > > > > > > > Wallace > > > > > > > > v. Jaffree (1985) struck down an Alabama law, but only because > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > state legislature blatantly tried to endorse prayer. The Court > > > > > > > > said, > > > > > > > > "The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools > > > > > > > > is, of > > > > > > > > course, quite different from merely protecting every student's > > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of > > > > > > > > silence > > > > > > > > during the schoolday." > > > > > > > > > So, the Court specifically affirmed that a moment of silence > > > > > > > > can be > > > > > > > > "appropriate" - even if it involves prayer. Now, there may be > > > > > > > > something else about the Tennessee law that would make it fail a > > > > > > > > constitutional test, but I doubt the case is as open-and-shut > > > > > > > > as your > > > > > > > > column suggests. A moment of silence may be bad policy, but > > > > > > > > it's not > > > > > > > > necessarily unconstitutional or discriminatory. That case has > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > been made. > > > > > > > > > Aaron- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
