Jump to content

Atheist group threatens suit over 'angels' on memorial to beloved teacher


LumRaiderFan

Recommended Posts

That happens when God is not a part of your life.......


So high school kids holding up "White Power" at a basketball game is cool, but this is not? You were big on the constitutional rights of those high schoolers, so I assume you're also squarely in the corner of these atheists as well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So high school kids holding up "White Power" at a basketball game is cool, but this is not? You were big on the constitutional rights of those high schoolers, so I assume you're also squarely in the corner of these atheists as well?

 

 

The first amendment clearly states that the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED......this is a clear prohibition of the free exercise clause of that Amendment.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first amendment clearly states that the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED......this is a clear prohibition of the free exercise clause of that Amendment.......


You've tried to use that argument before when talking about unconstitutional practices performed at schools if I'm not mistaken?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see how they have a valid challenge. Apparently they have no issue with a memorial, only that religious symbols are on it. I can see where they might want to ban all memorials but it you allow them, then the people that put them up should have the right to express their beliefs. I have seen cases where a teacher tells her students to do an essay on "anything" but then will try to stop a student from speaking of God or Jesus under the belief that it violates the Constitution. I have seen were courts have upheld the student's right to submit such papers because while religion cannot be dictated at a public school, it can also not be banned. 

 

The school is allowing the bench on campus. I did not read where the district was funding it so no public money is involved. If a cross on public property to honor a person is unconstitutional, what are they going to do at Arlington National Cemetery with all the crosses and Star of Davids on the thousands of graves? Those are funded by taxpayer's money. 

 

Some religious issues in schools are unconstitutional in my opinion but I am not sure how this memorial is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see how they have a valid challenge. Apparently they have no issue with a memorial, only that religious symbols are on it. I can see where they might want to ban all memorials but it you allow them, then the people that put them up should have the right to express their beliefs. I have seen cases where a teacher tells her students to do an essay on "anything" but then will try to stop a student from speaking of God or Jesus under the belief that it violates the Constitution. I have seen were courts have upheld the student's right to submit such papers because while religion cannot be dictated at a public school, it can also not be banned. 

 

The school is allowing the bench on campus. I did not read where the district was funding it so no public money is involved. If a cross on public property to honor a person is unconstitutional, what are they going to do at Arlington National Cemetery with all the crosses and Star of Davids on the thousands of graves? Those are funded by taxpayer's money. 

 

Some religious issues in schools are unconstitutional in my opinion but I am not sure how this memorial is. 

 

Great point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't try.....I DID use it and stand by it.....what part of the first amendment do you not comprehend???? It's crystal clear to anyone who can read.......


I personally don't have an issue with this memorial, but I feel like I remember you attempting to use the constitution to argue some religious practices that have been ruled unconstitutional over and over again by higher courts. maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't have an issue with this memorial, but I feel like I remember you attempting to use the constitution to argue some religious practices that have been ruled unconstitutional over and over again by higher courts. maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.

 

 

That probably WAS me.....:)...the courts views on religion are  diametrically opposite of what the founders intended......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined


  • Posts

    • You got a LOT more than that, you’ve got Riceland filling up. GCM is dropping down from 23-6A back down to 5A in ‘26.  GCCISD is redrawing attendance zones to make sure of that.  At the same time, BH was only about 100 students under the 6A threshold last time UIL drew districts so BH is definitely going up to 6A when those maps get redrawn, probably right into the empty spot in 23-6A GCM is leaving when they drop down.
    • Like I said, even if it’s only 10% of the 100 kids BHISD takes from GCCISD each year, that’s 10 athletes per year and that’s being generous.  You’re right about the jobs with BHISD, BTW.  There’s more than 1 athlete from Baytown originally who got transferred to BHISD after a job opened up for Mama.
    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...