No Constitutional Right To God?

[HAMel]

The following is an article regarding the prohibition of (any) reference to our Lord from a school district in California. It's really a sad state of affairs. Had any reference been offered up to allah, or the Pope, or some other image/idol it would probably have been okay'd by the powers that be. But to Jesus? No way.

The position is that students have no constitutional right to such activity as making reference to God. At the same time, what constitutional right does government have to prohibit such? This is all such a shame

Those of you living in the land of fruit and nuts best move out while you can. A calamity is surly on it's way.

A California school district says it will not apologize to a teenager who defied its orders and mentioned God in his graduation speech.

Attorneys representing the Brawley Union High School District have written a 10-page letter defending the school’s right not only to censor graduation speeches, but also to ban any speech that references God or Jesus.

“It is well established in the Ninth Circuit and California that a public school salutatorian has no constitutional right to lead a prayer or include sectarian or proselytizing content in his/her graduation speech,” reads a letter from the San Diego law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/11/school-have-right-to-ban-god/?intcmp=latestnews

 

[righteousdude2]

Would love to leave

The following is an article regarding the prohibition of (any) reference to our Lord from a school district in California. It's really a sad state of affairs. Had any reference been offered up to allah, or the Pope, or some other image/idol it would probably have been okay'd by the powers that be. But to Jesus? No way.

The position is that students have no constitutional right to such activity as making reference to God. At the same time, what constitutional right does government have to prohibit such? This is all such a shame

Those of you living in the land of fruit and nuts best move out while you can. A calamity is surly on it's way.

A California school district says it will not apologize to a teenager who defied its orders and mentioned God in his graduation speech.

Attorneys representing the Brawley Union High School District have written a 10-page letter defending the school’s right not only to censor graduation speeches, but also to ban any speech that references God or Jesus.

“It is well established in the Ninth Circuit and California that a public school salutatorian has no constitutional right to lead a prayer or include sectarian or proselytizing content in his/her graduation speech,” reads a letter from the San Diego law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/11/school-have-right-to-ban-god/?intcmp=latestnews

But my hmo is here and I am too disabled to even consider moving. I just ignore the lefts on the far left coast :laugh:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It is a misleading title by Fox (surprise, surprise). The school district never claimed a right to ban God - they do claim the right to limit free speech and free exercise which is still unconstitutional.

It is impossible to ban God - He is always there.

 

[HAMel]

It is a misleading title by Fox (surprise, surprise)....

C4K..., am I to assume here that you're a liberal at heart?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It is a misleading title by Fox (surprise, surprise)....

C4K..., am I to assume here that you're a liberal at heart?

Assuming is a dangerous practice. It leads to misperceptions.

So Fox is above criticism by true conservatives?

I ask - it is a misleading title or is it totally honest?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The following is an article regarding the prohibition of (any) reference to our Lord from a school district in California. It's really a sad state of affairs. Had any reference been offered up to allah, or the Pope, or some other image/idol it would probably have been okay'd by the powers that be. But to Jesus? No way.

Do you know of any examples where a reference offered up to Allah has been permitted to stand by this school district?

 

[HAMel]

Assuming is a dangerous practice. It leads to misperceptions.

...that it does. That's why I asked.

I ask - it is a misleading title or is it totally honest?

...according to your "assumption" it's misleading. What was that you said about "assuming" being a dangerous practice?

Do you know of any examples where a reference offered up to Allah has been permitted to stand by this school district?

...nope, don't have a clue! However, across the board making reference to allah in this country is permissible. Reference to allah appears to be permissible while reference to the Lord Jesus is taboo.

I wonder why that is? Well, perhaps because Jesus is the way, the truth and the light..., and any reference to Him brings heartburn that even tums can't cure.

Accordingly, this student was offering up "his opinion(s)" vice what the School Board considered to be appropriate. Wait a minute here..., does a graduating Senior represent the School Board? No. To me, the only time any School Board should jump into the center of such a situation is if and when intended comments are vile, ugly, abusive, etc. Otherwise, stay out of this kids address. He wasn't offering a sermon.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Assuming is a dangerous practice. It leads to misperceptions.

...that it does. That's why I asked.

I ask - it is a misleading title or is it totally honest?

...according to your "assumption" it's misleading. What was that you said about "assuming" being a dangerous practice?

Do you know of any examples where a reference offered up to Allah has been permitted to stand by this school district?

...nope, don't have a clue! However, across the board making reference to allah in this country is a no-no. Reference to allah, on the other hand, appears to be permissible while reference to the Lord Jesus is taboo.

I wonder why that is? Well, perhaps because Jesus is the way, the truth and the light..., and any reference to Him brings heartburn that even tums can't cure.

Accordingly, this student was offering up "his opinion(s)" vice what the School Board considered to be appropriate. Wait a minute here..., does a graduating Senior represent the School Board? No. To me, the only time any School Board should jump into the center of such a situation is if and when intended comments are vile, ugly, abusive, etc. Otherwise, stay out of this kids address. He wasn't offering a sermon.

I agree that it violates free speech and free exercise and stated so - but the school board did not try to ban God. That is a misleading title and not an assumption.

School: We have a right to ban God

Did they try to ban God, or words in a speech?

 

[HAMel]

Did they try to ban God, or words in a speech?

They banned God.

As the article states..., A California school district says it will not apologize to a teenager who defied its orders and mentioned God in his graduation speech.

...and no, they are not going to apologize for their position here.

The "orders" were..., No Mention Of God.

Seems pretty clear to me but then again, am I just "assuming" what the article reports?

 

[preachinjesus]

Outside of the ridiculous labeling of this by FoxNews...I find it curious that Christians nowadays believe they must have their faith practice and conception of God not just affirmed by the state, but dictated in its documents. You cannot ban God or faith, even by the sword and boot against the necks of believers.

Folks, I've got very bad news for you...at its founding Christianity stood against the cultural milieu and did so by proposing a conception of God that stood in complete apposition to the dominate features. And guess what? Christianity flourished.

Perhaps its time to recognize our proper position is not one of empire but one of minority within the state. Let these students pray, are administrators going to arrest them on stage? If they did, what kind of response would they be inciting?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Did they try to ban God, or words in a speech?

They banned God.

As the article states..., A California school district says it will not apologize to a teenager who defied its orders and mentioned God in his graduation speech.

...and no, they are not going to apologize for their position here.

The "orders" were..., No Mention Of God.

Seems pretty clear to me but then again, am I just "assuming" what the article reports?

They banned the use of His name in a speech - that is not banning God.

No one could do that anyway.

The author might have a case if he could show an example of where a mention of Allah was accepted.

 

[HAMel]

They banned the use of His name in a speech - that is not banning God.

No one could do that anyway.

The author might have a case if he could show an example of where a mention of Allah was accepted.

...and there my friend is where your "assumption" begins. My assumptions are dangerous and your assumption are correct.

Gotta run. I've a doctor's appointment. Spar with you later. :wavey:

 

[Revmitchell]

Fox got the title correct. It appears to nothing but hostility toward Fox that would lead people to say otherwise.

 

[Zaac]

It is a misleading title by Fox (surprise, surprise)....

C4K..., am I to assume here that you're a liberal at heart?

What's that got to do with being liberal? C4K has just noticed what all the news outlets do. They sensationalize in order to pull folks in.

Just another reason why Christians need to be careful about what they are aligning with. All of the news networks practice this type of divisive deception that serves the enemy's purpose.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It is a misleading title by Fox (surprise, surprise). The school district never claimed a right to ban God - they do claim the right to limit free speech and free exercise which is still unconstitutional.

It is impossible to ban God - He is always there.

From the article:

School administrators had redacted references to Jesus and the Christian faith in three previous versions of Hamby’s speech.

One administrator went so far as to redact every religious reference with a black marker – as if it were some sort of top-secret government document.

" ... so far as to redact every religious reference ... " If that's not "banning God," what is it? How do you have religion without God? And please don't quote the "it's not a religion its a relationship" mantra to me. I know that. We're talking practical secular reference here, not theology.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So God is do weak that men can ban him?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So God is do weak that men can ban him?

God's eternal purpose and will is never thwarted. But God can be resisted by men in the temporal realm. Otherwise, there would be no one condemned, no death, disease, destruction, evil, sin, etc. Jonah resisted God's will, and even could have continued to do so once he had himself thrown overboard. He nearly drowned. He faced a choice: Die, or cry out to the Lord. He chose the later. See his book, chapter two.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

God was not banned and this article has nothing to do with banning Him.

The young man's freedom of speech and exercise of religion were violated. That is the real issue here and what people should be upset about.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is a misleading title by Fox (surprise, surprise). The school district never claimed a right to ban God - they do claim the right to limit free speech and free exercise which is still unconstitutional.

It is impossible to ban God - He is always there.

It is almost constitutional impossible to censor anyone using Him/jesus name, as that is a first amendment right thing!

 

[HAMel]

This school district says it will not apologize to a teenager who defied its orders and mentioned God in his graduation speech.

Now, had they insisted that no reference to any (god) would be permitted, that would have been one thing. However, as they specifically referred to "God" it would appear that in fact they recognize the existence of the very God they are trying to prevent from being mentioned. How can this be?