#26
Posted: 2/4/13 at 9:49pm
Just get out the garlic, everybody.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
Portrait of Jesus in middle school is UNCONSTITUTIONAL? HOW? — Page 2
#27
Posted: 2/4/13 at 9:49pm
Ghost you're so right. Unfort they are as obsessed as they are close minded
FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ......................................................................................................................................
The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW.....................................................................................................................
...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................
#29
Posted: 2/4/13 at 9:59pm
Oy.
"Life in theater is give and take...but you need to be ready to give more then you take..."
#30
Posted: 2/4/13 at 10:03pm
It doesn't get better.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#31
Posted: 2/4/13 at 10:30pm
I was wondering how long it would take for mikey to ignore everything I provided for him proving how posting a religious portrait in a school, a government institution (you know, the state), and defending it by saying it's the free expression of religion is unconstitutional. The answer was far longer than I expected. He had to ignore everything I wrote and then move the fence posts to win in his head. Good for him. That kind of flexibility is hard to come by.
#32
Posted: 2/4/13 at 10:42pm
OP, how would you feel about a portrait of Muhammad in your public school right next to the American flag?
#33
Posted: 2/4/13 at 10:52pm
Trick question! THERE ARE NO PORTRAITS of Muhammad allowed!
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
Updated On: 2/4/13 at 10:52 PM
#34
Posted: 2/4/13 at 10:59pm
^^^^^^^^^^^^
ROFL!
ROFL!
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#35
Posted: 2/4/13 at 11:35pm
WHERE exactly do you see freedom FROM religion in the Constitution? Because the first amendment seems to completely contradict you; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF". (Emphasis added) This last portion seems to completely fly in the face of your theory.
as i said clearly, it does not say that, but freedom from religion is clearly in the context.
unless, you think it is "just a theory" that:
thomas jefferson said that jesus was not divine. what's your view on that?
thomas jefferson took a razor to the bible and cut out all that was fantastic, mythical, or outright wicked, leaving a very short book.
thomas jefferson wanted to be remembered for penning the virginia statute on religious freedom. he did not even think it was worth mentioning that he was secretary of state, vice president, or president.
james madison outright stated that he thought that having chaplains in congress was flat out unconstitutional.
in the context of this (as well as the fact that even men of their stature had to be careful to keep their opinions about christianity private or face persecution), yes, it is clear that they understood the only way for freedom of religion, is for the state to support none. this is because anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of history (as most theists are either blind to or lying about) knows that when one religion grabs power, it very quickly seeks to extinguish competing views.
if you take the opposite view, then yes, there should also be pictures of mohammed. maybe we can build a statue of him with his favorite wife, ayisha, at the age where she was betrothed to him, nine. maybe a few pictures of joseph smith, too. i take it, then, that you affirm his preachings, that he indeed took dictation from the angel moroni, and that there was a battle of comura in upstate new york, where the fair skinned, handsome nephites defeated the dark-skinned laminites, who incidentally had their dark pigmentation as a curse from god?
as i said clearly, it does not say that, but freedom from religion is clearly in the context.
unless, you think it is "just a theory" that:
thomas jefferson said that jesus was not divine. what's your view on that?
thomas jefferson took a razor to the bible and cut out all that was fantastic, mythical, or outright wicked, leaving a very short book.
thomas jefferson wanted to be remembered for penning the virginia statute on religious freedom. he did not even think it was worth mentioning that he was secretary of state, vice president, or president.
james madison outright stated that he thought that having chaplains in congress was flat out unconstitutional.
in the context of this (as well as the fact that even men of their stature had to be careful to keep their opinions about christianity private or face persecution), yes, it is clear that they understood the only way for freedom of religion, is for the state to support none. this is because anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of history (as most theists are either blind to or lying about) knows that when one religion grabs power, it very quickly seeks to extinguish competing views.
if you take the opposite view, then yes, there should also be pictures of mohammed. maybe we can build a statue of him with his favorite wife, ayisha, at the age where she was betrothed to him, nine. maybe a few pictures of joseph smith, too. i take it, then, that you affirm his preachings, that he indeed took dictation from the angel moroni, and that there was a battle of comura in upstate new york, where the fair skinned, handsome nephites defeated the dark-skinned laminites, who incidentally had their dark pigmentation as a curse from god?
#37
Posted: 2/5/13 at 8:03am
Awwwww, poor Pepper! No wonder she's in Briar Cliff with Sue and Mikey as her parents!
KFTC!!!!!
#38
Posted: 2/5/13 at 8:09am
It's not freedom from religion. It is freedom from a state-established religion.
Presenting a picture of a religious symbol in a public school would be just that.
Ok, picture of Muhammad is a bad example because Muhammad is not pictorially represented in Islam.
But how would any Christian feel if the Islamic crescent moon or creed or the Star of David were presented in their schools?
Probably the same way I might have felt - I'm Jewish - had a picture of Christ been presented in my public school: marginalized, unrepresented, oppressed, less than or other than an American. Why would anyone want to inflict that on anyone?
And that is why it would and also should be unconstitutional.
(Of course, I assume we are talking about presenting a specific religious symbol in wide public view in a school, and not just presenting religious symbols in a specific limited way relevant to a course of study - e.g., a discussion of Joan of Arc might of course include representations of her wearing a cross, a study of the Crusades might include depictions of Christian and Muslim symbols, the flags of nations which - because they don't share an equivalent American freedom from an established religion (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Denmark) - contain religious symbols can certainly be depicted during a discussion of them, etc.)
***
Why does the constitution require freedom from a state-established religion? Because a great many people came to the American colonies (including many of our founders' families) to escape religious tyranny and find freedom to practice their own faiths. They wouldn't want children to be educated in public schools which feature a specific religious symbol. They would believe that to be emblematic of the oppressive systems they were running away from in which they were discriminated against if they did not practice the state religion.
If families want their children to be educated amid religious doctrine and its iconography, they are free to place their children in parochial schools.
But you knew that, OP, didn't you?
Presenting a picture of a religious symbol in a public school would be just that.
Ok, picture of Muhammad is a bad example because Muhammad is not pictorially represented in Islam.
But how would any Christian feel if the Islamic crescent moon or creed or the Star of David were presented in their schools?
Probably the same way I might have felt - I'm Jewish - had a picture of Christ been presented in my public school: marginalized, unrepresented, oppressed, less than or other than an American. Why would anyone want to inflict that on anyone?
And that is why it would and also should be unconstitutional.
(Of course, I assume we are talking about presenting a specific religious symbol in wide public view in a school, and not just presenting religious symbols in a specific limited way relevant to a course of study - e.g., a discussion of Joan of Arc might of course include representations of her wearing a cross, a study of the Crusades might include depictions of Christian and Muslim symbols, the flags of nations which - because they don't share an equivalent American freedom from an established religion (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Denmark) - contain religious symbols can certainly be depicted during a discussion of them, etc.)
***
Why does the constitution require freedom from a state-established religion? Because a great many people came to the American colonies (including many of our founders' families) to escape religious tyranny and find freedom to practice their own faiths. They wouldn't want children to be educated in public schools which feature a specific religious symbol. They would believe that to be emblematic of the oppressive systems they were running away from in which they were discriminated against if they did not practice the state religion.
If families want their children to be educated amid religious doctrine and its iconography, they are free to place their children in parochial schools.
But you knew that, OP, didn't you?
Updated On: 2/5/13 at 08:09 AM
#39
Posted: 2/5/13 at 12:05pm
He should have, he is a teacher! LMFAO
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#40
Posted: 2/5/13 at 3:21pm
"He should have, he is a teacher!"
those who do...do... those who cant....
those who do...do... those who cant....
FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ......................................................................................................................................
The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW.....................................................................................................................
...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................
#41
Posted: 2/5/13 at 3:26pm
Those who can't, reply with LOL and ROFL...
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#42
Posted: 2/5/13 at 3:27pm
those who do... do...
... In this situation, that makes absolutely no sense.
... In this situation, that makes absolutely no sense.
#43
Posted: 2/5/13 at 3:30pm
"those who do...do... those who cant...."
HAHA, you're an ass, miss doodoo.
HAHA, you're an ass, miss doodoo.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#44
Posted: 2/5/13 at 3:32pm
George Bernard Shaw
FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ......................................................................................................................................
The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW.....................................................................................................................
...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................
#45
Posted: 2/5/13 at 3:39pm
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
Updated On: 2/5/13 at 03:39 PM
#46
Posted: 2/5/13 at 3:45pm
"Those who can, do; those who can't, teach"
Idiot.
Idiot.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#47
Posted: 2/5/13 at 3:51pm
oh you sad little man. so glad insulting me makes you feel like a real man. im sure its very rare for you. just makes me feel sorry for you!
FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ......................................................................................................................................
The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW.....................................................................................................................
...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................
#48
Posted: 2/5/13 at 3:55pm
When you INSIST that you are correct, when obviously you are wrong, it makes YOU the sad, little person.
ROFL
ROFL
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#49
^^^"THEATERDIVA: Those who can't, reply with LOL and ROFL... ^^^
oops, guess you insulted yourself!! hahaha #suckswhenmywordsareusedagainstme
Posted: 2/5/13 at 5:34pm
^^^"THEATERDIVA: Those who can't, reply with LOL and ROFL... ^^^
oops, guess you insulted yourself!! hahaha #suckswhenmywordsareusedagainstme
FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ......................................................................................................................................
The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW.....................................................................................................................
...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................
#50
Posted: 2/5/13 at 5:46pm
Ah yes, Sue, reading comprehension. He did reply! He followed his reply with it. Do you practice being stupid in front of a mirror to get it just right or were you born with it?
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
