Jump to content

Observer Hypocrisy


Guest Censorship

Recommended Posts

:rolleyes: strife no he did not word for word no! but you are running from god why? son lets talk about it! why? where did god fail you in your mind?look at this point i think i could out you but im not because i want to get at why you think god is not real! or cares about you yes you! kearny is a small town and sooner or later someone knows sombody that knows a friend that knows you! get it! you will slip and post something that will out you so lets fix whats wrong with your love of god or the lack of!!  just ask!  :wub:

Sounds alot like OLDFART, run-on sentences and a vague threat! Nice try Farty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Sounds alot like OLDFART, run-on sentences and a vague threat! Nice try Farty!

Outed? Then what, will they break out the torches? I don't want to speak for Strife but my problem is not with religeon...it's with the religeous. Those of you who feel you have a right to dictate how others should live thier lives based on your religeous beliefs are no different than those that attacked on 9/11. You are no different , only less dramatic. For now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a plethora of case law on the subject. We've said this over and over again, and the school does recognize the fact.

This is a well-settled question in the law. Mr. Paszkiewicz even has some of the leading cases on his syllabus for the class Matthew was in, including Engel v. Vitale. There is no legitimate debate about the status of the law. Public school teachers may not use the classroom to preach.

Paul is another person that refuses to post what The Constitution has to say about religion. Why? Because it really doesn't suit his purpose. Because taken literally it has nothing to do with preaching or sanitizing society of religion. Of course Paul's interpretation is another story. But, I'm sure he enjoys the day off on Christmas, a national holiday.

Also, Engel v. Vitale was a case where the student body was being forced to say a prayer during the school day by the administration. It has nothing to do with preaching in the classroom. It also had nothing to do with promoting a specific religion since the prayer was not written for a specific religion. I guess it all rides on how liberal the Supreme Court is at the time the case is brought to them, and alot less on what the Framers intended.

Good luck to you Paul, the NEA is a pretty powerful foe. Good thing you have the silliness of the BOE to count on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest_amazed_*
You can't be serious? How are there still people denying it? Well, it should be entertaining to see how you respond to a few seconds of poking through the transcript (and a few minutes of forum searching will find you more examples, to be sure--of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you've seen them but are just ignoring them on purpose):
[God] did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept me, believe!"...God himself sent his only son to die for days (???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with me.

The Constitution clearly mandates that governmental insitutions, of which a public school is one, are to be religiously neutral--here we have a history teacher preaching his dogma to the students. This is clearly unconstitutional.

In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

In Reynolds v. United States, Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as “almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.” In its first encounters with religion–based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson’s metaphor for substantial guidance.

[Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947) ; Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211, 212 (1948) ; cf. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 317 (1952) (Justice Black dissenting). In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971) , Chief Justice Burger remarked that “the line of separation, far from being a ‘wall,’ is a blurred, indistinct and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.” Similar observations were repeated by the Chief Justice in his opinion for the Court in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984) (the metaphor is not “wholly accurate”; the Constitution does not “require complete separation of church and state [but] affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any”). ]

But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action.

[Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952) ; Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) ; Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) ; Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 305 (1963) (Justice Goldberg concurring); Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 694–97 (1970) (Justice Harlan concurring). In the opinion of the Court in the latter case, Chief Justice Burger wrote: “The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.” Id. at 669. ]

I am not that learned a man, perhaps you are but then I don't claim to be an authority on the Constitution.

Forums are good, they let everyone express their authority, I mean opinion.

Leave it to those who might best be able to rule on such a delicate matter rather than a bunch of "armchair bloggers". Teachers spew so much unwanted personal rhetoric today why such a vehement response when it comes to religion?

Maybe that is the the bigger issue warranting further discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outed? Then what, will they break out the torches? I don't want to speak for Strife but my problem is not with religeon...it's with the religeous. Those of you who feel you have a right to dictate how others should live thier lives based on your religeous beliefs are no different than those that attacked on 9/11. You are no different , only less dramatic. For now.

There's nothing religious about what they're doing. Religion brings all things together into a harmonious whole. That is the essence of the original Latin word, from re (look upon all) and ligare (bind together, as a ligament does). "Religions" that say that people of other religions are to be eternally condemned as part of a supreme being's perfect justice are not religious at all. On the contrary, they are divisive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah--a bunch of people were using the anonymity to post inflammatory things which have since been deleted. I believe there were three such posts on the entry before the announcement at the time I commented on it.

Well, this letter has the person's name, why Canessa did not print this one?

This letter was in response to a letter by Edna Davie, printed in The Observer on January 17th.

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:40:24 -0800 (PST)

From: "C****** F******

Subject: Easy to judge, not so easy to be judged

To: publisher@theobserver.com

How could people think that serving God includes going without? How dare someone in this free country of ours have the guts to go on a local publication and tell a professor with a family to raise that he should give up his job because he has to choose religions over security and health insurance for his family. Haven't we gone to far? Is Ms. Davie kidding me? How could people be so cruel? Let's say someone comes to your simple house, attacks you character, attack you opinion, tells you that you are not Christian enough because you are not living poor, on the streets and letting your children go without. How would you feel Ms Davie if someone did that to you?. If any parent does that wouldn't they be label uncaring, neglectfull and also ignorant not to say radicals? Would you accept anyone coming to your job and saying that you should take less money and no benefits because you believe or not believe in Jesus Christ ? Oh my God, help us all. This is separation of brain and heart. How can someone say they have a heart. Did you ever sat down with Mr Paszkiewicz and asked him how many children he has, are they all healthy, are they fed, how many bedrooms his house has, how much luxury is he able to buy for his children with his "cushy" salary from the public school, did he ever go withouth, did he ever have to make a difficult choice? Would you be comfortable with those questions? Would you be able to look in someones eyes and ask them without being bothered? If you are, may God have mercy on you.

I can't also believe that this lady has compared Jesus Christ to young Mr LaClair. What do you know about Jesus? If you had any knowledge or personal experience with Him you would never compare Him to anyone, specially to this young man.

How far have we gone from what happened in the classroom? Does The Observer consider this freedom of speech or just gibberish? People lost track of everything and now this news paper is helping spread the filth and continue the smear campaign against one man who you know nothing about. Dignity does not come from other peoples judgment. It comes from life experiences and the actions we take that are written permanently in the book of life.

May the readers of The Observer never be chosen as a source of ridicule, a target of mean attacks or even horrible malicious criticisms. At least Mr Paszkiewicz has the Lord to help him along this difficult time. Not many could handle the attacks this long. I applaud Mr P for being firm on not addressing this horrible comments. He is the one following the teaching of the world's greatest teacher, Jesus, and offering the other cheek while being humble through it all.

This event has brought the best and worst in people. It is sad but a reality. People does not think of others feelings because they are too busy being judgemental. It is very easy to judge but not so easy to be the one who is being judged. God bless this country.

Thank you,

C****** F******

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content. Since I cannot confirm the authors name, it was edited.

KOTW Note: The post was edited twice because as WilliamK pointed out I edited the author's name at the bottom but missed editing the name at the top. It has now been corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution clearly mandates that governmental insitutions, of which a public school is one, are to be religiously neutral

Please, show me that portion of the Constitution which states this, I've never seen it.

This is article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance passed by the US Congress on July 13, 1787.

The US Constitution was passed by the same congress two months later on Sept. 17, 1787.

“Separation of Church and State?” Somebody should have told the founders!

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

By the way, that word "forever", wouldn't it include today? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Blue Wizard

The Constitution clearly mandates that governmental insitutions, of which a public school is one, are to be religiously neutral

Please, show me that portion of the Constitution which states this, I've never seen it.

This is article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance passed by the US Congress on July 13, 1787.

The US Constitution was passed by the same congress two months later on Sept. 17, 1787.

“Separation of Church and State?” Somebody should have told the founders!

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

By the way, that word "forever", wouldn't it include today? :)

The choice of one word buried within the Northwest Ordinance does not trump the Constitution or the Supreme Court in precedence. I will not rely on a document whose intent was to parcel out the Northwest Territories to judge whether religion should be taught in public schools. And even if we assume that this article of the Northwest Ordinance should have been followed to the letter, it does not specify that government schools must teach or encourage religion. If you are saying that schools should actively teach religion, then we're debating an entirely different topic.

And if you still believe that the article is worth its word count in gold ounces, I don't think we did a good job of "protecting" Native Americans or not going to war with them over land. In my opinion, the US government treatment of all the tribes was – and is – not in "good faith" at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Go Baby Go

The Constitution clearly mandates that governmental insitutions, of which a public school is one, are to be religiously neutral

Please, show me that portion of the Constitution which states this, I've never seen it.

This is article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance passed by the US Congress on July 13, 1787.

The US Constitution was passed by the same congress two months later on Sept. 17, 1787.

“Separation of Church and State?” Somebody should have told the founders!

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

By the way, that word "forever", wouldn't it include today? :angry:

gotta like it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution clearly mandates that governmental insitutions, of which a public school is one, are to be religiously neutral
Show me that portion of the Constitution which states this, I've never seen it.

The words "checks and balances" are explicitly written in the Constitution either. Would you suggest that that idea doesn't exist in it either?

What part of "wall of separation" do you not understand? If taxes pay for it, then it must be religiously neutral. The end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing religious about what they're doing. Religion brings all things together into a harmonious whole. That is the essence of the original Latin word, from re (look upon all) and ligare (bind together, as a ligament does). "Religions" that say that people of other religions are to be eternally condemned as part of a supreme being's perfect justice are not religious at all. On the contrary, they are divisive.

:lol:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog...ves/002248.html

Etymology makes for bad arguments more often than not.

Paul's attempt emphasized that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...