Prove there's a god.

[OCB]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Some tasks seem pointless, like raking leaves.
Some tasks are pointless, like trying to remove God.

While raking leaves may SEEM pointless, it's not.

To say they keep coming so why bother is STUPID.

You might as well say there is no point in cleaning the house because it's just going to get dirty again.

You might as well say there is no point in washing your car because it's just going to get dirty again.

You might as well say there is no point in showering because you're going to get dirty again.

And....your self-inflicted persecution complex does not go unnoticed, RR.

NO ONE is trying to "remove" religion or a BELIEF in a god.

However, you trying to FOIST religion and YOUR belief in YOUR god onto others and in PUBLIC places is not only against the law, it is inappropriate.

Don't like it?

Tough. MOVE TO A THEOCRACY already, will ya?

[OCB]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I am, thanks.
Unlike you & Aero, who would circumvent the constitution and force teachers to take down religious material.

No, you're not.

I am not forcing teachers to take down anything. That would be the SCOTUS.

It is YOU who is trying to circumvent our constitution, RR. You have really little- if any at all- respect for the founding tenets of the USA.

Get the F*CK out! You are a TRAITOR to all this nation was founded upon and you are not deserving of the rights, freedoms and liberties afforded us upon the founding of this nation.

[RiversideRedneck]

Huh wrote:

<quoted text>It depends on how it is displayed and what that display is used for, so, yes, "expressly forbidden" is a non-starter. A teacher may wear a cross necklace, for example, but can not use it to prosyletize. Crosses can not be used as classroom decorations in US public schools. This has been substantiated and upheld by the courts.
See, e. g., Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971).
Displays of religious symbols, texts or artwork on school property are impermissible unless a display is integrated into an appropriate secular curriculum.
52 See Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39, 42 (1980); ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County, 354 F.
Your use of the term "expressly forbidden" is dissemblance of the third kind, since you know that a teacher may wear personal jewelry and religious symbols may be part of secular curriculum, but, you also know that religious displays, artwork, and prosyletizing are "expressly forbidden". Parsing words is inherently dishonest.

Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971) is about teaching creationism, not religious decorations in schools.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39, 42 (1980); ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County, 354 F is about having the 10 commandments posted ins Kentucky courthouse, not religious decorations in schools.

"expressly forbidden" wasn't *my* term...

Try again?

[RiversideRedneck]

Huh wrote:

<quoted text>Rednecks can't understand cultural Jews. They never had a really good bagel with a schmear.

Stereotype much?

[RiversideRedneck]

OCB wrote:

<quoted text>Huh, as you seem to be new here- and already a welcome addition, btw- do NOT assume RiversideRedneck knows ANYTHING and certainly don't assume he knows what you very accurately posted.
But you are right in saying that RR is "inherently dishonest"- to that, I would only add "as the day is long". Even though the longest day of the year is no match for how very inherently dishonest he is.

Yes, he very accurately posted two courts rulings irrelevant to the discussion...

And you blindly agreed...

[OCB]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Stereotype much?

OMG- look who's talking- MR. MAJOR STEREOTYPING of ANY and ALL he is clueless about and doesn't understand.

[RiversideRedneck]

OCB wrote:

<quoted text>Your explanation was WRONG. You claimed your Jesus instructed you to turn the other cheek regarding acts of war but not in one on one confrontations.
What a crock.
In that scripture, the following words appear: "Him", "Person", "Someone".
The above words refer to an INDIVIDUAL and have nothing to do with acts of war- at least not in the sense you meant it with your moronic and erroneous "explanation".

At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.

[RiversideRedneck]

OCB wrote:

<quoted text>I AM Jewish. That is the religion I was born INTO and unless I undergo a formal conversion to another religion, that will never change whether I am a practicing Jew or not.
Again, because you are ignorant about Judaism and what not only the RELIGION is all about but also what Judaism is all about on a cultural level and regarding one's heritage, you can't begin to understand the phrase "Once a Jew, always a Jew"- and that would apply even if I did undergo a formal conversion to another religion.
I can't really fault you for your ignorance other than your lack of desire to learn, but this issue is something that is really only best understood among Jews.

You're a hypocrite.

You can't be a Jew and a deist.

It's on or the other.

Or you're a Jeweist.

[RiversideRedneck]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
so if a teacher displayed a satanic pentagram or other devil worshiping symbols, you'd be okay with that???
somehow I think you're lying about a Muslim crescent, so I very much doubt you'd sanction anything to do with devil worship

I wouldn't like to see the Muslim crescent or a pentagram, but the teacher has the right to display them.

I would fight for their right to do it.

[RiversideRedneck]

OCB wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry, you IGNORANT American- it IS the law.
Public schools are NOT allowed to display ANY religious items- nor should they be.
Don't like it? Sorry- that you don't like it doesn't make it any less the LAW, you CRAPPY anti-American.

That's you opinion.

The constitution agrees with me.

[OCB]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971) is about teaching creationism, not religious decorations in schools.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39, 42 (1980); ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County, 354 F is about having the 10 commandments posted ins Kentucky courthouse, not religious decorations in schools.
"expressly forbidden" wasn't *my* term...
Try again?

Sigh.....you're such an anal-retentive fool.

General Rule: Displays of religious symbols, texts or artwork on school property are impermissible unless a display is integrated into an appropriate secular curriculum. 52 The fact that a display is donated by a private group or paid for by private funds will not affect whether it is permissible under the Establishment Clause. 53

May a school permanently display the Ten Commandments within classrooms or on school property?******No.***** A temporary display of the Ten Commandments integrated into a secular curriculum such as history or comparative religion may be permissible.

54 However, the Ten Commandments are "undeniably" a religious text, and the Supreme Court and a number of lower courts evaluating permanent displays of the Ten Commandments have found that such displays have a predominantly religious purpose and ******violate the Establishment Clause.****** 55

May a school permanently display religious artwork within classrooms or on school property?*****No.*****

Similar to displays of the Ten Commandments, a temporary display of religious artwork integrated into a secular curriculum may be permissible.******However, courts also have found that permanent displays of religious artwork have a predominantly religious purpose and violate the Establishment Clause.******* 56

http://www.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/property....

"The duty to uphold the Constitution is a fundamental difference between public schools and religious schools.

*****While government-sponsored schools must stay neutral (often called separation of church and state),***** private schools are not similarly bound. The contrast is stark: parochial and religious schools openly inculcate religion while teaching reading, writing, and mathematics."

Among the issues that have reached the High Court:

Can a school district allow students to conduct prayers over the loudspeaker and before kickoff at a varsity football game?(No)
Does a religious student club get the same rights and privileges as other student clubs?(Yes)
Is a school district required to give equal access to an outside organizations that provide after-school religious instruction to young children?(Yes)
Is a moment of silence really a cloaking device for prayer?(Sometimes)
Are the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional in schools?(Undecided)

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-...

Stop your annoying whining already, will ya?

[RiversideRedneck]

OCB wrote:

<quoted text>How about getting your head out of your ass and taking a look at post #570837?
And WHY do you ask others to do your research for you?
If you don't believe that is the law, look it UP for your lazy ASS self, you lazy ASS.

If there was such a law, you the google liver would've posted it by now....

[RiversideRedneck]

Karma is a_______ wrote:

<quoted text>
well except that it is the law......they just barred a nativity scene in Santa Monica because it was on public/gov't land. Of course the Christian Taliban fought it in court...AND LOST
so now it is being displayed on PRIVATE LAND
one has to wonder
WHY DID THEY WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME AND MONEY.....WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST PUT THE DISPLAY UP ON PRIVATE LAND TO BEGIN WITH....
oh yeah that would involve logic...something religious fundamentalists seem to be lacking

But it's not the law.

You fundamentalist atheists don't understand that.

Why would you want a nativity scene taken down?

[OCB]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.

WTF does that have to do with you having originally said that scripture referred to acts of war?

[Huh]

OCB wrote:

<quoted text>Huh, as you seem to be new here- and already a welcome addition, btw- do NOT assume RiversideRedneck knows ANYTHING and certainly don't assume he knows what you very accurately posted.
But you are right in saying that RR is "inherently dishonest"- to that, I would only add "as the day is long". Even though the longest day of the year is no match for how very inherently dishonest he is.

Point of order, I did not state that the Redneck was "inherently dishonest". I stated that parsing words was inherently dishonest. There is a distinction.

[OCB]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
You're a hypocrite.
You can't be a Jew and a deist.
It's on or the other.
Or you're a Jeweist.

Yeah- I can be. I don't belong to any Deist church or temple nor do I belong to any Jewish temple.

One CAN be both. My religious beliefs coincide with that of Deism; my cultural heritage coincides with that of Judaism.

Until you can understand and/or accept that being a Jew is NOT only about religious beliefs, I can't help you.

[OCB]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, he very accurately posted two courts rulings irrelevant to the discussion...
And you blindly agreed...

Nope- not at ALL irrelevant and they showed what a clueless wonder you are.

[OCB]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, he very accurately posted two courts rulings irrelevant to the discussion...
And you blindly agreed...

Really- irrelevant to the discussion, huh?

"Displays of religious symbols, texts or artwork on school property are impermissible unless a display is integrated into an appropriate secular curriculum."

Ummm.....sorry....totally PERTAINS to the discussion.

Oh- and do note where it states: "SECULAR" curriculum.

[waaasssuuup]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
I can dig a vodka collins, it's pretty much what you drink :)

A COLLINS??? river came out of the closet! just kidding, bud:)

[OCB]

Huh wrote:

<quoted text>Point of order, I did not state that the Redneck was "inherently dishonest". I stated that parsing words was inherently dishonest. There is a distinction.

Oh I know and am aware of the distinction; I was just cluing you in to the fact that many here know RiversideRedneck to be inherently dishonest- period.