Posting “In God We Trust” in classrooms proposed (Kern County CA)

[The Straight Story]

Legality of KHSD's 'God' meeting item challenged
By CHRISTINE BEDELL, Californian staff writer

e-mail: [e-mail] | Monday, Oct 1 2007 2:44 PM

Last Updated: Monday, Oct 1 2007 3:36 PM

The Kern High School District board shouldn’t have any kind of discussion of posting “In God We Trust” in classrooms tonight because it hasn’t given the public sufficient notice it’s on the meeting agenda, an expert on open government law said today.

But district officials say only initial talk — no formal action — is planned so what’s going forward tonight is OK.

The meeting agenda says there is to be a “trustee request for new board policy” and that is not descriptive enough under California’s open meeting law, called the Brown Act, said Terry Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware.

....
The proposal, coming from board trustee Chad Vegas, is to post “In God We Trust” in every Kern High School District classroom. Today, Vegas said all that’s expected tonight is for him to introduce the idea, for fellow board members to perhaps ask some questions and for him to ask that the matter be placed on the KHSD November meeting agenda.

http://www.bakersfield.com/hourly_news/story/249797.html

[VLC]

1. How many times does this have to be settled?

[Kutjara]

4. An infinite number of times.

Fundie zealots will never stop trying to foist their particular fairy tales on the rest of society. They never seem to realize that "freedom of religion" also implies "freedom from religion," or indeed "freedom from whatever lunatic whackiness the majority of addlebrains believe is true."

[ShaneGR]

102. How many times can a County Attorney make some money?

This happens over and over again, the County looks to their attorney for advisement. The attorney says, SURE, go ahead and I'll represent you free of charge. No big deal! Then the ACLU or whoever really feels like it challenges them in court. Suddenly the attorney who says he'd work from free brings in a well funded conservative organization to take over for him (at a cost paid back to him). It's all a publicity and money scam at this point. Sad thing is the people who pass these stupid resolutions don't know any better.

[MrModerate]

2. I'm not a lawyer but . . .

It seems they'd be in their rights to have a preliminary discussion about putting the item on a future agenda. If prohibited from doing so, I'm not sure they could ever get any legitimate business done, because under such constraints they'd have to hold public hearings about a concept before the concept was introduced.

That having been said, they're still morons if they *do* put it on the agenda, unless they explicitly want to violate the law should there be some resolution as an outcome.

And board trustee Chad has already proved himself a moron.

[CT_Progressive]

9. Actually, thats not entirely accurate.

They must cover any new business by including an item on the agenda called "New Business" or sometimes "Other business". Any new topics can be introduced when that item on the agenda is reached.

Without this sort of item on the agenda, nothing new can be discussed.

Items that are not detailed on the agenda cannot come to a vote. Therefore, its impossible to bring up a new item and vote on it in the same meeting.

Violation of this procedure is a FOI violation, incurring (possibly) fines and/or an invalidation of whatever might have been voted on/passed into legislation.

[MrModerate]

96. So, to stay within the FOIA, they couldn't announce ahead of time . . .

That the topic would be discussed, but could bring it up, unannounced, under "New Business?"

[baldguy]

3. Just what the hell does "In God We Trust" mean?

Or the 10 Commandments for that matter?

The people who do battle with their fellow citizens to cram this stuff down their throats obviously don't know and couldn't care less.

You really want to show how "faithful" to God you are? Help some poor people. Comfort the sick. Visit someone in prison. Stop treating other human beings like shit!

And, for Gods' sake - STOP VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS!

[The Straight Story]

5. I am ok with the 10 C's for a really simple reason (outside of religion)

The jewish people were starting over after being in egypt for so long and needed something to guide them, sort of like our bill of rights/et al.

They built up a society around an ideal (don't kill, cheat, etc) so I can them in a historical context vs a religious one.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. The idea that the 10 Commandments are some kind of groundbreaking basis of law is a lie.

Fully half of them are purely religious in nature, and don't have anything to do with "don't cheat", or "don't kill" (which is, what, #6?) .. Believe it or not, cultures were able to come up with guiding principles along those lines completely independent of Cecil B. DeMille's Moses walking down from the mountain with big-ass stone tablets.

The 10 Commandments are fine, as part of peoples' religion. They do NOT belong in the Courthouse.

And what business "Thou Shalt have no other Gods Before Me" has to do with human law and justice is beyond me. :shrug:

[AlCzervik]

19. you're ok with the 10 commandments going where? if you mean a court house

then you better make room for Hammurabi and a whole host of other statues.

[Zhade]

23. First off, there's no extra-biblical evidence of the Exodus. Sorry.

Second, RELIGION IN SCHOOLS IS FUCKING ILLEGAL. Get that straight, pal.

[Quantess]

64. I sort of agree the 10 commandments aren't too outrageous, as separation of church and state goes,

but technically the 10 commandments are unconstitutional. Small potatoes, but still...not appropriate.

[NMMNG]

78. The 10 commandments are religious, period

They are not the basis for our Constitution, Declaration of Independence or government in any way.

Do you also want the Eight Fold Path, Five Pillars of Islam, Elements and Principles of Humanism, etc. on every school wall? In all fairness that's what would need to be done. If we're to put up monuments to Judaism/Christianity we need to honor everybody's beliefs. Those walls are going to get awfully full.

[NMMNG]

7. Don't you realize?

If "In God We Trust" were posted in every school classroom there would be an instantaneous end to classroom violence, children would immediately begin behaving appropriately, there would never again be a teenage pregnancy or problem with those "homosexuals", and life would return to the way it was back in Mayberry. It's only because those Evil Atheists took prayer out of the classrooms that things have gone to Hell in a hand basket.

[Quantess]

50. Yes, and God would answer the prayers of Homosexshuls,

and make them straight. O8) :sarcasm:

God has a very fragile ego, and needs constant reassurance that we adore him.

[NMMNG]

76. If God loved homosexshuls so much

Why didn't he make them straight in the first place?


Or maybe I should ask if God hates homosexshuls so much, why didn't he make them straight in the first place? Gee, this is so confusing. :crazy:

[FiveGoodMen]

6. I propose the death penalty for anyone who tries to undo the First Amendment

[1monster]

8. I wonder if these "educators" know that the motto of the United States in NOT

"In God We Trust"... It is E PLURIBUS UNUM. From many, one.

[mikelewis]

10. What harm does posting "In God We Trust" do?

It seems rather innocuous to me. I fail to see where this slogan threatens the sovereignty of the Constitution or in any way threatens to usurp the leaders appointed through our democratic process. If the people of this town want to make a public posting of something printed on our American dollar, what harm does that cause anyone?

[VLC]

12. You're right, it should not be on the dollar either.

Oh, and if we all get to pick a slogan to put up in classrooms around the world, I want: BEEF, IT'S WHAT'S ROTTING IN YOUR COLON.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Mine would say: "We want you to Abstain Until Marriage. Even if you get married at 35.

...No, really. We're serious. Why are we cracking up while we say it? No, we're not. Really. We think you're going to wait until you're 35 to have sex. Honest. We did. (snort) Seriously. No, the fact that millions of dollars in Abstinence Only education money is dependent upon us spreading this crap has nothing to do with it. Really. No sex until marriage. Honest."

[Guaranteed]

42. No, it shouldn't.

It's illegal.

[ManiacJoe]

94. It makes sense on the money. Unfortunately...

... it got truncated from the original: In God we trust, everyone else pays cash.
:evilgrin:

[Goblinmonger]

16. Other than the first amendment

I don't see any problems.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. What is the purpose of posting it in a public school?

No. Really. Why the fuck does it need to be posted, I'm assuming in big, honkin', fuck-you-ACLU-and-Atheists letters, in a public school?

What is it going to accomplish?

What if the "people of that town" want organized prayer in school, too? ...I mean, What's the problem? What harm does it cause? :eyes:

"It seems rather innocuous to me". Let me guess. You're not an Atheist. Is there any school endorsed religious activity that wouldn't seem innocuous to you?

[mikelewis]

20. What danger does it pose? Is there some secret and insidious plot that I'm not aware of?

What is it going to accomplish? I have no idea... I don't live there and have no desire to force people to believe what I believe. If they wish to organize prayer in school then that is their prerogative as long as it does not violate the Constitution or impede on a persons rights. No, I'm not an Atheist nor am I ignorant as to the dangers of ignorant hate-filled demagoguery designed to tear down strangers based on their beliefs... I think there can be a balance and a mutual understanding between people of many different ideologies and a school is probably the best place to start teaching tolerance towards people of all faiths.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. "If they wish to organize prayer in school then that is their prerogative"

No, it's not. It's extremely upsetting how frequently I come across people who are deluded- seriously deluded on this. It does NOT MATTER if EVERY SINGLE PERSON in a town WANTS PRAYERS TO JESUS in their public school. (or says they do, at least) It is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. It's not a matter of "everyone in the town loves Jesus, so why can't we turn the public school into a religious indoctrination center". It doesn't fucking work that way. Sorry.

Organized, School-Led prayer is unconstitutional. Kids CAN pray in schools, but the school can't endorse it. Obviously, you don't understand why.

Here's one question the pro-prayer in schools crowd never seems to want to answer: Is there a church shortage in this country I haven't heard of, where people need religious affirmation endorsed by their public school?

Teach tolerance towards people of all faiths, first by expressly understanding that the proper place for official religious expression is NOT in a public school.

What if the sign said "In Allah We Trust"? "In Buddha We Trust"? "In Krishna We Trust"? "In Zeus We Trust"? Would you have a problem with it then? How about "In Satan We Trust"?

Bear in mind, that would be the ONLY sign. There wouldn't be a sign for everyone's deity or deities, or a sign for those of us who don't have one at all.

[mikelewis]

26. I am not afraid of a sign that says any of those things...

In fact, a sign that says "In God We Trust" is just as innocuous as any of the one's you listed... including "In Satan We Trust"... As I said, it's not my town and I am not going to force my belief's on them... nor am I willing to impede upon their first amendment rights to display whatever speech they choose to display. Who are you to decide for these people what they are allowed to say and what they are not allowed to say? It's a sign... it's only words. They are neither mandating a religion nor assigning any special deference to a Christian God or Muslim God or Buddhist God... Like our dollar, it merely says "In God We Trust"... which God? Allah? Christ? Brahma? Krishna? Does it matter? To an atheist, it's all meaningless anyway so "In God We Trust" means "In No God We Trust"... what harm is there?

When I was an atheist... I saw no harm in it... Now that I know there is a God... I still see no harm in it. They do not believe in the same God I do nor do you, for that matter... so they're neither harming me nor helping me. If you hate them just because they believe something you do not... that's your prerogative, you can go to that town and post a sign to that affect and maybe even get it approved to hang in the school so every child in there knows how you feel... but your sign will be as meaningless to the children as the words printed on the dollars they are being raised to worship, your hatred will be as innocuous as their sign that causes you so much frustration... and in the end the children won't care any more about your sign than they will about those you hate.

[DefenseLawyer]

30. You should start your own school

or maybe your own country, because this one still has an Establishment Clause.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Blah, Blah, Blah. You still don't get it.

Yes, one has a first amendment right to put whatever you want on a sign. But NOT IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL.

Is that really so hard to grasp?

Apparently.

I don't "hate" anyone for what they believe. Nice fucking try. Nice fucking straw man. I notice there's still no answer to my question- is there a church shortage in this country I haven't heard about, where the only place people can find to express their religious faith is in public schools? :shrug:

Beyond that, the only "hate" here is coming from the people who want to put a big, honkin' sign in their school that says "In God We Trust" as a "FUCK YOU" to people who don't believe in their "God". That is the ONLY reason anyone is trying to get this shit shoehorned into a public school. No one's education is going to be enhanced by a sign, shit, no one's religious faith is going to be enhanced by such a sign. The ONLY reason for doing something like that is to give a giant middle finger to "pesky Atheists and ACLU types".

[mikelewis]

47. Maybe that is their reason for erecting the sign but it does not mean they don't have the...

right to erect it. No, there is no shortage of churches in America, just as there is no shortage of dollar bills floating around in public schools. "In God We Trust" is a symbol of the American Dollar and until that is removed, you have no standing under the First Amendment... You said it yourself, "shit, no one's religious faith is going to be enhanced by such a sign." If these people wish to send you and the ACLU a "Fuck You" by posting a sign on a school wall, right now that is their right...

[Warren DeMontague]

70. We'll see, won't we.

Pretty much every tired fucking piece of Theocratic apologia for government-endorsed religion, prayer in schools, etc. that you've floated in this thread has been shot down at one point or another by the Supreme Court as Unconstitutional, so I suspect your gibberish about this piece of "free speech" that is somehow magically exempt from the Establishment Clause because "It's on our money" will prove to be, as well.

It's nice to hear you admit, however, that the motivation behind this is simple, small-minded animosity towards Atheists -a minority in this country- and the ACLU.

Remind me, now, how I'm the one who is intolerant and full of hate? :eyes:

[mikelewis]

81. Wow, it must be nice not to need any proof of claim to back up anything you've said....

In which Supreme court case are you referring that states "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional and in violation of the establishment clause. Until that ruling comes, it's acceptable and legal to post this in any public or private setting... even in schools. I have no idea the motivation behind the board members wish to discuss this issue and can't even hazard a guess. I don't have to remind you how you are intolerant and full of hate, you already know that better than I. God be with you.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Right. Any time a minority stands up against obvious bigotry and small-minded discrimination they

are "full of hate".

But wait. What else did you just say?

"it must be nice not to need any proof of claim to back up anything you've said...."

That's really funny. Did you think about that line, before you wrote it? I mean, REALLY think about it? Let's hear it again:

"it must be nice not to need any proof of claim to back up anything you've said...."

No, see, you must have me confused with ORGANIZED WESTERN RELIGION. That's how the fundamentalists of many major RELIGIONS operate, particularly when they try to traipse into the realm of science.

But I digress.

All I can say is, anyone who gets so bent out of shape by the presence, in our society, of people who dare to question the existence of their invisible man in the sky that they HAVE to do this stupid fucking dance around the constitution to shoehorn some -ANY- mention of "God" into Government and Public Schools- their faith must not be terribly strong.

I'm an atheist, but you don't see me marching into Churches demanding that they teach Darwin or hang pictures of Werner Heisenberg over the altar. There is a time and place for everything, and there are plenty- limitless, really- opportunities for free religious expression of all kinds in this country. The ONLY place where it is not permissible is when it is done on government property with either direct or implied government endorsement, and that goes DOUBLY SO when you're talking about indoctrinating other peoples' KIDS with a religious belief system.

I'm sorry that's so hard for you to grasp. I'm sorry that you have such a weak understanding of the Constitution, particularly as to how it protects the rights of the minority and NOT JUST the rights of a majority who may want to hijack local government for their religious purposes just because "everyone in town loves Jesus anyway". Particularly, I'm sorry that your belief system is seemingly so threatened by the presence of anyone who questions it that you need to buy into a bunch of right-wing Bill O'Reilly talking points gibberish.

And I'm sure you figured saying "God Be with you" would piss me off. Har Har Hardly. I'll leave you with a "Hail Eris" and remind you that the Earth isn't flat, nor is it 6,000 years old. And there's "proof" to back up those "claims", Believe it or not. Just FYI.

[mikelewis]

92. Are you high or did you just eat too many paint chips as a child?

You stated...

"Pretty much every tired fucking piece of Theocratic apologia for government-endorsed religion, prayer in schools, etc. that you've floated in this thread has been shot down at one point or another by the Supreme Court as Unconstitutional, so I suspect your gibberish about this piece of "free speech" that is somehow magically exempt from the Establishment Clause because "It's on our money" will prove to be, as well."

Yet you have offered only blathering diatribe and not one shred of substance to back up your wish that the Constitution supports your claims. I have made no assertions other than saying that "In God We Trust" is free speech, recognized by the Federal Government and thus allowed to be displayed in any public or private venue. If you don't like that... sorry but it's the law nonetheless. Take it up with the supreme court. God be with you.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. You're also operating under the delusion that if a town "wants" prayer in their public school

they can unanimously vote to have the schools endorse religion and organized prayer. If I'm "high" and "ate too many paint chips," you've been smoking the entire lead-tainted Thomas the Tank Engine set.


One of us is doing the blathering diatribe thing, here, but it's not me. As I said, all the tired arguments you seem to think you're brilliantly inventing on the spot, here, have been tried previously as people bend over backwards to try to shoehorn religion into public schools. They've ALL been shot down. In addition to seemingly believing that prayer in schools is okay if "everyone in the town wants it" (or did you figure out that you're wrong on that one?) you also seem to think that "because it's on the money" is some kind of ironclad argument for saying "In God We Trust" is different from every single other decision which has taken state-endorsed religious messages OUT of public schools. Like I said, we'll see. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe your far-right buddy in Kern County who is, according to a resident in this thread, "throwing shit at the wall to see if it will stick", will win on this one. But I wouldn't bet that he will.

As for "free speech"... Again, you don't get it. You don't seem capable of distinguishing between individual first amendment rights and the fact that the SAME first amendment says that GOVERNMENT ENTITIES can not ENDORSE RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Yes, it's "free speech" (so is "Bong Hits 4 Jesus") but that doesn't mean that public school administrations can post it.

Still, you don't get it, and the best you can do is come up with lame ad hominem insults. How "Christian" of you. :eyes:

[mikelewis]

97. Still... not one law or article supporting your position...

You are claiming something is unconstitutional... you are laying the accusation; which means you actually have to supply proof that posting a sign that reads "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional. How does a federally recognized motto attempt to violate the establishment clause of the first amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...

"In God We Trust" does not currently... according to American law... violate that amendment in any manner in which I am aware. Your assertion that it does violate that law should offer some sort of substantiating proof other than your most fervent wishing and earnest blatherings. I appreciate your strong feelings against God but those feelings have no relevance. The OP is about the school board's wish to display a slogan that has been federally recognized and is currently on display on our currency. Since our currency must be approved by an act of Congress, I assume this would add some legitimacy to fact that this slogan does not violate the Constitution. My opinions about school prayer, school lunches, school uniforms are irrelevant to this discussion... show me the proof of what you say or slink off and stew. I stated originally that I do not see any harm in posting this sign but I was rather ambivalent about it. However, now I most heartily hope they do decide to post it just so you and others who feel as you do have the opportunity to bring this issue to trial which will allow you to actually have some sort of legal argument to reference since you clearly cannot do so now. God be with you.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. I think the onus is on you to prove that somehow "In God We Trust" is different than all the other

religious messages that have been shown to not be constitutionally permissible in public schools.

But, like I said, we'll see, won't we?

"I appreciate your strong feelings against God"-- that's funny. Like 'I appreciate that you've stopped beating your wife'. :eyes: I suppose you think you're really nailing it with these lame attempts at elbow jabs, like "God Be with you". Again, Har Har Har.

Are you honestly suggesting that anyone who stands up for the constitution, anyone who doesn't think organized prayer belongs IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS is "against God"? Hey, no worries- I sympathize the fact that the "God" you believe in is so desperate for validation and attention that "he" needs the help of school boards to stick references to him in places where they clearly don't belong, i.e. public schools, because obviously church isn't cutting it.

And again.. what happened to how the town can have prayer in schools if they all "want" it? Where'd that argument go?

As someone else in this thread told you, "I see your point. It's just not a very good one".

[mikelewis]

99. As long as you see my point...

Excellent discussion... clearly you now understand that you have no real argument, just wishful thinking. The onus of my argument was simply, I see no danger in allowing a school board in a city I do not live in to discuss in a public forum the possibility of using a nationally recognized motto. Currently, it is not against the law and until it is... neener neener neener.... you were beaten by a guy who believes in fairy tales.... haw haw haw!!!

As for God... he doesn't need me to fight his battles... you can believe what ever you want and frankly I don't give a shit. I am not the good shepherd... in fact, I'm no shepherd at all. I don't like churches, I think mostly they're an apostasy and I try and avoid them as much as possible. I think most people are full of shit when it comes to understanding God and I understand that most people believe the same about me. All I know is my own life is better now than it was before and it has a lot to do with that imaginary figure you seem to hate so much... he, she, it, whatever... may be imaginary, I could be crazy but...

" If this be madness, God", her husband, Na'eem, prayed at her funeral service, "Give us all the courage to be mad".

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." So may the peace of the Lord be with you... especially since you do not believe.

[Warren DeMontague]

100. Now you're just talking gibberish.

You've declared yourself the 'winner', so I guess that's what counts. Don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back, there, Debater Champ.

Although I guess you just figured you'd let that thing about your "If everyone in the town wants prayer in the school they can decide to have it" argument drop, huh?. Mmmm Hmmm. Probably for the best.

Neener, yourself. What are you, twelve?

:boring:

[mikelewis]

101. Actually, that argument is not relevent to the topic however...

...if you read the line I wrote about that...

If they wish to organize prayer in school then that is their prerogative as long as it does not violate the Constitution or impede on a persons rights.

Goodness gracious, you should really brush up on your facts before you start flailing away with your opinions... you could put your eye out with those things. Prayer is protected in schools, sorry but people are allowed to pray in schools. The Supreme Court even said so... it just can't be mandatory or sponsored in any part by the schools. Here... let's ask the ACLU...

III. EQUAL ACCESS TO SCHOOL FACILITIES

The Establishment Clause issues are quite different where a school district wishes to make its facilities available for use by student or community groups during non-school hours. In such cases, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit opening the school's facilities to religious groups -- provided no elements of school sponsorship or endorsement are present.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16037res20020311.html

Here's another article...

More generally, there is no evidence that there is anything resembling systematic suppression of religious activity anywhere in public schools. When the Christian Coalition proposed its Contract with the American Family, for example, it was able to muster only a handful of examples of arguable suppression of religious activity in the schools, and virtually all of these were resolved on the basis of a simple phone call or visit from legal counsel. In one case the dispute went to court and was resolved in favor of the student. Indeed, If anything, religious activity in the public schools has been growing in recent years. In the last several decades many religious groups have placed increased interest in student evangelism, and have established thousands of prayer and Bible study clubs in the public schools. Such activity is protected, as it should be, by the Equal Access Amendment, which guarantees students the right to form religious clubs to the same extent they have the right to participate in other extra-curricular activities.

Ouch!!!
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/pray2b.htm

Prayer groups are allowed. However that had no bearing on this instance.

It's one thing to put words in someone's mouth and an entirely different matter when the words can be cut and pasted from a previous post. And no I'm not 12 though I bet my 13 year old knows more about the Constitution than some pretend they do... in a way, it's similar to the way many on the Right pretend they know the Bible. They're mostly full of shit and ignorant to the truth.

God be with you.

p.s.

neener neener neener

[Warren DeMontague]

103. The operative words, being, "mandatory or sponsored by in any part by the schools".

Of course kids can organize Christian Clubs and have prayer meetings during non-school hours. That's not what you said. In fact, you wrote your line in answer to my question which was, and I quote:

"Is there any school endorsed religious activity that wouldn't seem innocuous to you?"

See that word? Endorsed?

It's in the blurb you quoted from the ACLU:

"provided no elements of school sponsorship or endorsement are present."

Of course people are allowed to pray in schools. But school prayer is not allowed. Do you understand the difference? No, you don't.

Post #21, here's what I said, and I quote: "Organized, School-Led prayer is unconstitutional. Kids CAN pray in schools, but the school can't endorse it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1953999&mesg_id=1956240

That's what *I* said. In this thread. Yesterday. Yet, here, tonight, you think you're shining some kind of brilliant illuminating light of reason by informing me "Prayer is protected in schools, sorry but people are allowed to pray in schools." Well, gee whiz. Thanks for clearing that up. Did you hear on the AM Radio that mean ol' Atheists don't know that kids are free to pray in schools on their own volition, perchance? Right. Never mind what I actually said, you're having a grand old time arguing with some fucking straw man figment of your imagination, the God-hatin' Atheist who wants to rip the Bibles out of the wee childrens' hands.

Actually, given that there "is no evidence that there is anything resembling systematic suppression of religious activity anywhere in public schools." (your quote), we must ONLY exist in the imaginations of "some people"- probably those same full of shit "some people" who pretend they know more about the Constitution than they do.

Cough.

What you don't seem to get is the difference between the school allowing a Christian Group (or a Wiccan Group, or a Cthulu Group) to meet and pray, and the school HAVING organized, Christian (or Wiccan, or Cthulu) prayers as part of the Curriculum. The SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION posting a sign saying "In God We Trust" is a clear ENDORSEMENT of the idea that "GOD" exists. That is an ENDORSEMENT of a RELIGIOUS BELIEF. And as such, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

And the ACLU, which you have liberally quoted as an authority on this subject, is going to agree with me on that.

[mikelewis]

104. You just make shit up as you go along, don't you?

Why not just focus on the things I've said and not what you think I believe... Oh, that's right, your atheism gives you telepathic powers that allow you to determine every view I hold... though it is nice to see that once again you are in total agreement with the things I've stated about school prayer and "In God We Trust"... hell, in time, I may even get you to grudgingly admit there is a God and that you were wrong about that too. However, that's not my point, though proselytizing your world view seems to be on your agenda. You're an atheist... fine, who gives a shit... you don't like religious people... fine, don't talk to us... however, you have no right to redefine the Constitution to suite your animosity.

Also... the ACLU probably does agree with you on "In God We Trust" but have decided that the climate is not right to try and mount a campaign against it... which is smart. With the make up of the court the way it is... they'd lose. However, they'd also agree with me on the points I've raised... much to your dismay. Since you feel so strongly... you should contact them and get involved in helping them instead of mounting ignorant unsubstantiated diatribes at me. God be with you.

[Warren DeMontague]

105. You're really flailing, now.

Everything you've said, and everything I've said, is preserved in this thread for all to see. For instance, you seem to be asserting that I "make shit up as I go along". So what 'shit' did I 'make up' in that previous post? That you finger-wagged at me about how kids "can pray in schools if they want" when the day before I said the exact same thing? I provided links. Go ahead, check.

And no, that doesn't mean that "now I'm agreeing with you" that kids can pray on their own in schools as long as it isn't endorsed by the school or school-led. Unless you've got a time machine, I SAID IT FIRST. So YOU are agreeing with ME, if anything. Like I said, it's in the thread, and I posted a link in the last post you replied to. Good fucking grief.

The only one here 'proselytizing' is you, and you can't even do that right.

You should feel fortunate, though- you managed to piss away more of my lifespan on your incomprehensible bullshit than the average Jehovah's Witness or Mormon gets away with, particularly since I have one of these over my door:



So go waste your own time, buddy. You're through wasting mine.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Mmmm Hmmm. Whatever you say.

The link was directed to one of MY posts. Here it is, again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1953999&mesg_id=1956240

Whoops. I said I wasn't going to let you waste any more of my time. There, you got a free extra twenty seconds. That's it.

Would you like to buy a monkey?

[Quantess]

72. LOL, I must admit I enjoyed your post.

:) I was skeptical at first glance, but I agree with you. Kids don't fully get it. I was an agnostic child from my earliest memories. When I was about 6 and 7, my older sister took me to her Christian youth group activities, which I found to be smarmy, stifling, and boring.

Then when I was about 10 years old and a friend took me to her youth group meeting....watch out! The Youth Group Leader, a 20-yr-old-or-so guy, said "blah...blah...de..blah....most people are wrong about everything!" So I quickly asserted "Most people believe in God. Are they wrong?"

You can only imagine the dirty look I received!

That was my priceless smartass comment at age 10.

[Zhade]

25. Atheism's not a fucking ideology. I wish you people would get that through your skulls.

NT!

[mikelewis]

29. Yes it is... It's a firm belief that there is no God...

That is an ideology... sorry if you don't like having a faith but you do.

[Quantess]

74. What? Say that to me, if you dare.

I call myself an atheist/agnostic. The agnostic part is definitely more accurate, because I have a spiritual bent that I inherited from my dad. My mom is not religious at all, and is more of an atheist. Both are in their early 70s and are Scandinavian immigrants.

And no, I don't have a "firm belief". What an unsubstantiated stereotype! On the contrary, I bet I am more open minded than you are!

Edit....now I realize that I have been unnaturally intrigued by this poster. This mikelewis is very flashy and intriguing. I Guess that's why I responded to him 3 times!

[mr blur]

77. Bullshit!

It's a lack of belief in any deity. Can't you see the difference?

Trust and faith are two different things; I trust proven, tested scientific principles (that a plane will stay up in the sky, for example) - I don't have faith in them.

It's the difference between Reason and Superstition.

[Guaranteed]

59. Atheism is an ideology- and thus is protected in just the same

way as any recognized religion is.

[Guaranteed]

52. Endorsing any religion, or atheism, in school is not a good way to "start

teaching tolerance towards people of all faiths."

[mikelewis]

54. Which religion is it endorsing?

[Guaranteed]

56. Any that believes in God.

Or, rather, it is denouncing atheism. Which is equally illegal.

[mikelewis]

61. How is it "denouncing atheism"? It makes no mention of atheism...

It doesn't say, "In God We Trust except for those fucking atheist!!!" In fact, it makes no mention of you at all...

[Guaranteed]

63. I'm not an atheist. I'm quite the Deist, in fact. Which

is why I enjoy the protection that the founders of our country gave us in keeping religion and government separate.

To answer your question, the phrase is denouncing, or making an affirmative declaration in contradiction to, atheism, by recognizing what it refers to as "God." Frankly, your question is disingenuous. The meaning of "In God We Trust" is quite evident on its own.

[mikelewis]

65. If there is no God... how can it be evident what the meaning is?

To an atheist... this slogan is meaningless. To a Christian it means... in Christ we trust. To a Muslim it means... in Allah we trust. To a Jew it means... in Yahweh we trust. To an atheist... In No God I trust. It's not denouncing anyone nor vilifying anyone... it is innocuous. It's a stupid slogan meant as a big fuck you to the Soviet commie pinkos from a by-gone era and is in no way an evangelical device. If you don't believe in a God or if you do... who gives a shit? This sign isn't going to change one persons mind nor harm anyone in anyway... other than those who love to feel morally outraged over nonsense. People on DU love bashing people of faith... and the anti-faith gang-bang is poisoning the well for a lot of people who have much to contribute to our collective agenda. Who gives a shit if this school votes to hang up a sign that isn't going to hurt one single person any where at any time... if this event leads to forced prayers and conversions by fire... I'll start to worry but for Christ's sake... it's a fucking sign.

[Guaranteed]

66. "To an atheist...this slogan is meaningless."

You're playing games with words. What you're saying is just wrong.

No, the statement is not "meaningless" to an atheist. It's still an endorsement of deism, or a religion involving belief in God, by a school- whether the atheist believes it or not. It places social pressure on the atheist to change his beliefs by reason of the fact that he is surrounded by the belief, held by, apparently, not only his peers, at which the sign is being aimed, but the school administration itself.

Such a sign is wholly inappropriate and would constitute not only a school's but a government's endorsement of religion.

[mikelewis]

67. It is the National Motto... Like it or not... the school can post the National Motto without...

...violating the Constitution. That can be challenged but unfortunately for your argument, it has not been, to date. Take it up with the supreme court in the morning... but for tonight, I am going to bed. Good night.

[Guaranteed]

69. Try this one.

Our REAL national motto (and I'm sure you've seen it before):

http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/unum.html

Our founding motto, my friend. "Out of many, one."

It has quite the meaning, as well.

"In God We Trust." Please.


In any case, an illegal motto is an illegal motto.

[mikelewis]

79. Until it is ruled illegal...

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Just because you don't agree, does not make it illegal. You may find the motto in poor taste and may even try to take your opinion into a court of law if you wish but until then... it's legal and protected speech.

[gollygee]

84. It says that there is a God

Imagine if there were a sign that said "There is no God" in public schools.

[mikelewis]

93. You are more than welcome to try and have that sign erected...

I would also support your right to display that sign even if the school board decided against it... especially if that school had erected a sign that you found to be offensive to the Constitutional separation of Church and State.

[Bluebear]

71. 'If they wish to organize prayer in school then that is their prerogative'

Holy moly.

[angstlessk]

86. "Fuck all athiests till they get AIDS and die. " would be a better banner as

it would cover ALL religions and not be preferential to a single religion. I saw your post and could not help myself! :rofl:

[Zhade]

24. It's a violation of the separation of church and state. THAT'S the harm.

You allow one, seemingly harmless (but not, since it makes nonbelievers and polytheists feel excluded from others) violation, others get in.

It. Is. Illegal. If you do not understand this, crack a history book.

[mikelewis]

31. Which history book? Or better yet... which law book?

The first amendment protects people's right to free speech... the phrase "In God We Trust" is printed on the U.S. Dollar and is allowed as legal tender in all schools across America. Until that is abolished through the courts, the town is not violating any laws by erecting the sign that says the exact same thing.

[DefenseLawyer]

28. How would "In Satan We Trust" grab you?

Not everyone "Trusts in God", and in this country the non God trusters are on equal footing with the trusting believers. When you put up a sign in a public school classroom saying what religion "We" believe in... Oh nevermind, if you don't get it, you never will.

[mikelewis]

33. If that town votes to erect a sign that reads "In Satan We Trust" I would...

...applaud the First Amendment to the Constitution that gives them that right.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. The First Amendment does NOT Permit GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT OF RELIGION.

An individual has a right to religious expression. A government entity DOES NOT.

:crazy:

[mikelewis]

39. Have you seen an American dollar?

[Warren DeMontague]

44. No.

I've never seen this "Dollar" of which you speak. :eyes:

[DefenseLawyer]

41. I don't know if you are yanking chains

or just don't understand the Constitution. The First Amendment does not allow governments at any level to "vote" to put up signs endorsing religion. To the contrary, the First Amendment specifically PROHIBITS any such action. The First Amendment allows individuals to endorse any religion they please or put up whatever signs they please, but not the government, even if every single person in the town is an applauding true believer like yourself.

[mikelewis]

48. Which religion is it endorsing? Other than this one?

[DefenseLawyer]

55. I get your point. It's just not a very good point.

In the first place, "In God We Trust" has only been on our currency since 1957, not exactly placed there by our founding fathers. In the second place, the Supreme Court has never specifically said that the phrase on money is not a violation of the establishment clause; to my knowledge they have refused to hear any case brought on the issue. That is hardly a strong legal footing for you to declare that posting "In Got We Trust" in public schools is constitutional.

[mikelewis]

60. Then this is perfect time for you to jump in and get those terrible words off our holy money...

I personally do not want any mention of God coming from this or any other government. I would like to see Christianity go back to the days when to be lionized meant exactly what it sounds like. People hate Christianity because of the assholes who use it for their own personal gain not because it poses any real danger to humanity. Faith is a powerful force... probably the most powerful force on the planet if you really consider the implications of it... and when it is twisted to the benefit of Man, it is the most hideous force ever imaginable... (Which is why the 10 commandments are actually quite relevant but that's another discussion, and no I don't think they should be displayed in a court house)...

However, personal issues aside, this would be constitutional until ruled on by a court in some manner. Keep in mind, the constitution also allows the states room to decide their own laws as long as they are not in violation of the Constitution... and the states pay the same deference to the local governments as well. This would be completely Constitutional until it is ruled otherwise... that is the beauty of our system as inconvenient as it may be at times. I would like to see a challenge of this sort and I would like to see how the Justices voted. Kennedy would of course be the swing vote and I doubt he'd rule in your favor but it would be an extremely interesting debate. I see it as more a free speech issue and not a religious one but I am not intimidated religious ideologies. I know we could hang crosses on every door and mandate daily bible readings and it wouldn't change the way people saw God... those that see him, see him regardless of a book and those that don't, won't. "No one pours new wine into an old wineskin..." "blah blah blah..."

[Solon]

73. Your problem is that you view this as a free speech issue, when it really isn't that at all.

Governments do NOT have a right to free speech, that includes public schools, federal, state, and local governments, courts of law, etc. Citizens have free speech rights as individual, private, citizens, hence, if you wanted to post a sign in your front yard saying "In God We Trust", then you have that right. However, PUBLIC schools do NOT have that same right.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Don't bother. The important thing is the "right" of fundies to use government to tell atheists to

fuck off.

Nothing else matters, apparently. :eyes:

[liberalsoldier5]

75. Very well put.

I'm with you. :hi:

[gollygee]

80. If it didn't do anything, people wouldn't work so hard to put those words up, would they?

it's called brainwashing. It is specifically targeted at children for a reason.

[Ino]

83. Would you feel the same if they posted "In Allah We Trust"?

...or Buddha... or Thor... or The Great Spirit... or the hundreds of other gods you don't believe in?

How about if the Pledge of Allegiance said, "one nation, under The Flying Spaghetti Monster.." Would that be OK with you?

[gollygee]

85. Or "There Is No God"

I bet that sign wouldn't be OK

[Johonny]

11. So waste of space

wanted me to sign to get/keep "God" in our pledge at school while I was walking out of the grocery store. I responded with nice F that. Who the heck thinks the worst thing going on right now in the country is the wording of the pledge force to be said by school kids? What a tool.

[VLC]

13. If God wants to advertise in our schools

she should have to pay, just like the Milk Board.

[Honeycombe8]

14. Well, it's on our money. That IS different from making the children recite it. nt

[Zhade]

27. It's wrong that's it's on our money, too.

ANY endorsement is ILLEGAL.

FUCK! Why do people refuse to understand that fact?

[Quantess]

46. My guess is because....

since Shrub's in office, and the SCOTUS has become skewed so far to the right, the fundies now are in a better position to impose their religion on everyone else.

[Zhade]

22. FUCKING ILLEGAL.

NT!

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Dude!

Where ya been? :hi:

[mikelewis]

36. Can you show the law that they are violating?

Or is it illegal just cause you don't like it or agree with it?

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Let's see. Try Abington v. Schempp/Murray v. Curlett (1963)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

And Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer.01/index.html

for starters.

[mikelewis]

40. That case hardly applies in this case and you know it...

The phrase is printed on the dollar and in no way violates the establishment clause. "We" does not imply "You", nor does it force you to conform to any ideology other than capitalism...

[Warren DeMontague]

45. So, the bar for prayer being constitutional in schools is whether it's printed on money, first?

And precisely what fucking Law is THAT?

[mikelewis]

51. This is not school endorsed prayer... this is not forcing children to read a book...

this slogan doesn't even espouse a particular God nor is it all inclusive to include those who don't trust in a God. It states, "In God We Trust"... not you... "We". See, you are not included in that.

[Guaranteed]

58. Is there a qualitative difference between a school-endorsed slogan

making reference to "God" and a school-endorsed prayer?

What's the real difference between putting a sign on a wall proclaiming, effectively, that God exists and that we "trust" in Him, and telling students, "Ok, it's time to pray to God!"?

[mikelewis]

62. It's an American Government endorsed slogan... take it up with the Federal Government...

That may very well be the intent of those who wish to post the sign... however, until you get it removed from our legal tender... it's an exercise of free speech.

[Guaranteed]

68. An exercise of free speech?

So, a school administration is protected in creating a policy promoting the existence and "trust in" God by the 1st Amendment? No. I don't think so. The school administration's "speech"- if you could call it that- is not protected, politically, in the same way that an individual's speech is.

You would have more of an argument if a teacher was promoting such a policy. However, as a representative and employee of the school, even a teacher's right to free expression of his/her religious views would have to yield to the required separation between church and state, given the authority the teacher is making use of in expressing those views.

And, you're right- someone should take the money issue up with the Federal Government. It's illegal.

[Guaranteed]

43. Yup. nt

[Swamp Rat]

34. Only if they allow "In Allah We Trust" too.

:D

[QC]

49. DAMN RED STATES!!1!!1!1 n/t

[mikelewis]

53. LOL

[ebayfool]

57. Chad Vegas is an outright fruitcake. Did I forget to warn you @ the local

fundies when welcoming you to town? They're everywhere!

I've read some of his proselytizing on some of the local web blogs ... & people vote for him, unfortunately.

This is just the latest of his efforts to get religion into the local public schools - he'll keep throwing more crap at the wall, hoping some will stick. This effort is being branded as 'teaching students patrotism' ... he's not above misleading advertising as long as it helps his cause.

The fact that they're downplaying this means they're testing the waters. If there's not much screaming, they'll go farther w/it. If locals raise a ruckus, they'll let it sink.

A courageous lot, eh?

!Thank Fred! that the town's population is diluted/enriched w/a lot of new blood from LA, the Bay, etc. Helps keep the worst of the fundy suggestions from being enacted.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Apparently, we've got some folks on DU very eager to stand up for him.

Like you said, it's a matter of "throwing crap at the wall and hoping it will stick".

But if you criticize this bullshit, this obvious attempt to say "fuck you" to the ACLU and minority groups like atheists, you're "full of hate".

:eyes:

[ebayfool]

91. Vegas has political aspirations - big aspirations - & is a fundy wet dream.

The OP story isn't an isolated effort to slip religion in the back door, it's just the latest in a series of throwing crap against the wall.

For those that think it's harmless, a little background:



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Chad+Vegas%22+kern+county&btnG=Google+Search

------------------------
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/250070.html
IN GOD WE FUSS

Current local news on the OP story.
------------------------
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/12/ING92A89SL1.DTL

http://www.kerndemocrats.com/2004/12/12

"I don't think the government owes people health care," says youth pastor and newly elected public high school board member Chad Vegas. "If we were doing things ideally in this country, it would be churches' responsibility to provide health care, using Christian doctors."

------------------------
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/90830.html
Man sets himself ablaze at courthouse

snips:
A day after the Kern High School District board of trustees voted to rename winter and spring break as Christmas and Easter break, a 31-year-old man set himself on fire in front of the Liberty Bell on Truxtun Avenue in apparent protest.

The man, whose name wasn’t released, used flammable liquid to set himself, a decorated Christmas tree, an American flag and a revolutionary flag replica on fire just before 3:30 p.m., according to Bakersfield fire Capt. Garth Milam. Bakersfield police, in a release Friday night, reported that he had a flag that read “Don’t Tread on Me.”

“I’m sad that any man would light themselves on fire because they disagree with a decision by a representative board elected by the voters,” said trustee Chad Vegas, who brought the issue to the board. “My reaction as pastor is that it demonstrates the deep depravity of man(kind) and his need for the grace of God through Jesus Christ.”


http://andynoise.com/blog/2006/12/26/bakersfield-gets-religion/

snips:
Such considerations — and vehement public protests — didn’t stop the board of the Kern High School District from leaping aboard the war-on-Christmas train and chugging through a proposal from board member Chad Vegas, a minister, to switch from the more secular phrase to full-on Christmas recess. Same for spring/now-Easter recess.

Board member Vegas contends that this move teaches children about American tradition. Quite the opposite. Perhaps he should bone up on civics and culture. That might even help his schools’ performance.

------------------------
Vegas' conservative stance a CRA dream

http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/8374

snips:
Chad Vegas -- local pastor, Kern High School District trustee and burr under the saddle of moderates and liberals here and throughout the state -- requires no such clarification, which is likely why he was elected a vice president of the California Republican Assembly on Sunday at the group's annual convention in Ontario.

"We're beginning to see a growth and a kind of coalescing of the conservative movement in the southern Central Valley, especially in Bakersfield," Vegas says. "Conservatives in this community are organizing themselves for political action -- we've always had moderates control the power base in Bakersfield, but that's shifting."

If that doesn't give hard-core conservatives goosebumps, I don't know what will.

The 33-year-old Vegas is the only central valley representative on the CRA's board of 10 vice presidents, a position through which he expects to encourage a growth spurt of CRA affiliates throughout the valley. An articulate and unwavering defender of conservative ideals, Vegas is active in the Bakersfield Republican Assembly and has acted as delegate to the CRA for several years. His election to the board follows his appointment as CRA chaplain last month by President Mike Spence.

-------------------------
Intelligent Design

http://www.amysnott.com/blog/amesnott/2005/10/intelligent-design-does-it-belong-in.html

snips:
Chad Vegas thinks the most revered scientific theory in biology is nonsense. And to teach nonsense unchallenged in county classrooms tarnishes public education.

Vegas, one of five board members in the Kern High School District, is a creationist who wants intelligent design taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes.

"I think intelligent design is viable science," said Vegas, a youth pastor at RiverLakes Community Church. "When you see the incredible complexity of the world, you can't explain it by random chance. I think Darwinism is bankrupt."

[gollygee]

82. They day this goes up at my daughter's school is the day I start homeschooling

I'm a strong believer in public education but I won't stand by and send her to school with that kind of blatant religious brainwashing going on.

[rucky]

90. Why don't they just put up a giant dollar bill?

with Buck Owens' picture on it?

In Buck We Trust

it's a reasonable compromise

[Dukkha]

106. and say the pledge to it

it's more accurate to this country