Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/28/2006 4:10:54 PM EDT
because it was of him praying at Valley Forge. WTF? What has this country come to? I thought I was coming to one of the few sane places left in the east when I decided to move here?

News article here...

-Ben
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:22:10 PM EDT
That's a shame, but it doesn't surprise me.
Like most of the U.S., the school boards here are overrun with libtards, or are just a bunch of pussies that are afraid to get sued. Sucks to watch the board of education go down the shitter.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:43:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:48:37 PM EDT
welcome to the new America.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 4:46:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 4:49:41 AM EDT by DrMark]
I was getting ready to post this when I saw this thread. I heard the story on the radio (a national show) and followed up on Google. The story stood out since I graduated from Tabb High School.

Text from another article:

Judge says school can remove teacher's religious posters

RICHMOND, Va. A federal judge has ruled that a Virginia school district didn't violate a teacher's free-speech rights by removing Christian-themed postings from his classroom walls.

In her ruling filed last week, Judge Rebecca Beach Smith said William Lee's posters at Tabb High School in Yorktown were instructional tools and curriculum, making them subject to school review. She also found that his free-speech rights were limited because he was teaching in a public school.

Lee, a Spanish teacher who advises the school's Christian students club, had displayed news articles about President Bush's religious faith, a National Day of Prayer flier and a depiction of George Washington praying at Valley Forge.

Officials removed the postings from Lee's classroom in 2004 after a parent complained.

www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=4564263&nav=0Rcx3aIN


Link Posted: 3/1/2006 7:40:38 AM EDT
From that last story it's OBVIOUS these posters were not put up as simple posters and left for personal reflection on their meanings.

They were placed in a position of prominence, in a school classroom, and then likely discussed as a matter of the curriculum.

This seems like a pretty clear cut interpretation of the separation of Church and State.

Not because of the posters themselves, as they are inanimate objects, but because of the insistence of the teacher to refer to them in his official school capacity.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 8:01:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
From that last story it's OBVIOUS these posters were not put up as simple posters and left for personal reflection on their meanings.

They were placed in a position of prominence, in a school classroom, and then likely discussed as a matter of the curriculum.

This seems like a pretty clear cut interpretation of the separation of Church and State.

Not because of the posters themselves, as they are inanimate objects, but because of the insistence of the teacher to refer to them in his official school capacity.



But are you not allowed to teach taht certain religions exist in a public school? Or are you required to completely ignore their existance? I thought the poitn of separation of church and state was not to favor or champion one religion over another, but to require removal of pictures of people praying seems a bit far fetched... I would submit that any pictures of muslims praying, etc, must be removed on teh same grounds

Just discussing
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 8:37:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pevrs114:


But are you not allowed to teach taht certain religions exist in a public school? Or are you required to completely ignore their existance? I thought the poitn of separation of church and state was not to favor or champion one religion over another, but to require removal of pictures of people praying seems a bit far fetched... I would submit that any pictures of muslims praying, etc, must be removed on teh same grounds

Just discussing


I think they're basing this on the idea that he did favor one religion over another. As a point of comparison, in Waynesboro,VA public schools, students are sent away for a partial afternoon of classes on religion at their local place of worship as chosen by their parents. Since that permits personal choice and doesn't favor any specific religion, it's been allowed and hasn't been seen as a violation of church and state. It's probably a much better choice for allowing religious education while keeping the church/state seperation people happy.


Link Posted: 3/1/2006 10:31:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 10:32:38 AM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By pevrs114:
I thought the poitn of separation of church and state was not to favor or champion one religion over another...



Then you agree that the teacher in this case violated the "point" of the separation of the two.

He CLEARLY chose an image of Washington in prayer, he CLEARLY advocated Washington's choice of Gods. He CLEARLY used his official position within the Commonwealth's school system to advocate Christian beliefs. Which is fine if you are a follower of Jesus, but it's not so hot if you are Jewish, Muslim or anything else.

Therefore, the ruling does not shock me one bit. In fact, I offer that it was a sound legal decision, based on law, and not making up BS on the bench.

While I don't have to agree with the underlying issues, meaning I think it sucks, but the law is pretty clear in this regard in both previous case law, and interpretations of statutes.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 12:07:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By pevrs114:
I thought the poitn of separation of church and state was not to favor or champion one religion over another...



Then you agree that the teacher in this case violated the "point" of the separation of the two.

He CLEARLY chose an image of Washington in prayer, he CLEARLY advocated Washington's choice of Gods. He CLEARLY used his official position within the Commonwealth's school system to advocate Christian beliefs. Which is fine if you are a follower of Jesus, but it's not so hot if you are Jewish, Muslim or anything else.

Therefore, the ruling does not shock me one bit. In fact, I offer that it was a sound legal decision, based on law, and not making up BS on the bench.

While I don't have to agree with the underlying issues, meaning I think it sucks, but the law is pretty clear in this regard in both previous case law, and interpretations of statutes.



+1

Just like it should be illegal to push their anti-gun sentiments on children.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 12:23:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MaverickH1:
Just like it should be illegal to push their anti-gun sentiments on children.



Unfortunately, their right to hate guns doesn't violate my Constitutional rights.

Link Posted: 3/1/2006 12:27:31 PM EDT
Should be
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:51:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By pevrs114:
I thought the poitn of separation of church and state was not to favor or champion one religion over another...



Then you agree that the teacher in this case violated the "point" of the separation of the two.

He CLEARLY chose an image of Washington in prayer, he CLEARLY advocated Washington's choice of Gods.
He CLEARLY used his official position within the Commonwealth's school system to advocate Christian beliefs. Which is fine if you are a follower of Jesus, but it's not so hot if you are Jewish, Muslim or anything else.

Therefore, the ruling does not shock me one bit. In fact, I offer that it was a sound legal decision, based on law, and not making up BS on the bench.

While I don't have to agree with the underlying issues, meaning I think it sucks, but the law is pretty clear in this regard in both previous case law, and interpretations of statutes.

How does a historical painting of Geo. Washington, that has no mention of any particular religion, promote a specific religion. Sounds like judicial revision of history to me.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 3:49:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 3:51:37 PM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By Jacketch:
How does a historical painting of Geo. Washington, that has no mention of any particular religion, promote a specific religion. Sounds like judicial revision of history to me.



Read what I wrote in the whole thread.

A poster is an inanimate object, not capable of doing anything but sitting there on the wall. I GUARANTEE, based on the second posted story, that this teacher did not just let the poster set on a wall and allow students to reflect on its meaning to them.

Also, is there really any question to whom George Washington was praying and that he was a devoted Christian and Mason?

I can almost assure you that the teacher used and referred to that poster as a MEANS to open conversation about religion and prayer.

While I am making some assumptions, it appears that what I have read backs up these assumptions. He was actively using that poster to further his agenda.

While lots of posters are allowed in schools that promote a lot of different things, one that is used to make religion a core of the learning environment is a "no-go".

As sad as that may be...
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 4:39:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 4:44:51 PM EDT by trio]
what, to me, as a former school teacher, and as someone who will sit for the VA bar in july, makes this a pretty clear cut ruling is this:

"Lee argued that his bulletin boards at the school in Yorktown, about 65 miles southeast of Richmond, were a limited public forum open for teachers' private expression and speech."

BEEEEPPPP....wrongo...sorry....

By that theory a teacher could post literature encouraging membership in the KKK for example...so long as the speech was not meant to intimidate or was not intended to cite imminent lawlessness (these are the Virginia v. Black and Brandenberg standards...,man I am quoting this a lot)...school bulletin boards are not forums for private expression...in my mind this ruling is spot on...keep in mind too, that the Fourth Circuit and associated federal courts is the MOST conservative circuit in the country...if they found it too far, it probably was too far

You are right though, religion can be taught...favoring christianity cannot...had the guy posted a board about religion in general he would have been fine...

Honestly, the national prayer day is instituted by Congress...had he encouraged students, regardless of faith, to do whatever is appropriate for them on that day he would have been fine...

it is, of course, one of the greatest contradiction we as Americans indulge in...

Our national motto is "In God We Trust"

We all know about the Pledge of Allegiance issues...

Im not saying its right or wrong, but it is certainly confusing...

Link Posted: 3/1/2006 4:46:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 4:48:04 PM EDT by RockHard13F]

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By pevrs114:
I thought the poitn of separation of church and state was not to favor or champion one religion over another...



Then you agree that the teacher in this case violated the "point" of the separation of the two.

He CLEARLY chose an image of Washington in prayer, he CLEARLY advocated Washington's choice of Gods. He CLEARLY used his official position within the Commonwealth's school system to advocate Christian beliefs. Which is fine if you are a follower of Jesus, but it's not so hot if you are Jewish, Muslim or anything else.

Therefore, the ruling does not shock me one bit. In fact, I offer that it was a sound legal decision, based on law, and not making up BS on the bench.

While I don't have to agree with the underlying issues, meaning I think it sucks, but the law is pretty clear in this regard in both previous case law, and interpretations of statutes.



I'm a Jew and I find it more then appropriate to have a picture of George Washington praying, and even to discuss Christianity in schools. There is nothing wrong with the state giving an acknowledgement to the exsistance of God, and if the leaders of the state wish to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, then let them. So long as there is no state sponsored religion, which recieves extra incentives from the state, then there is seperation of Church and State.

-Ben

ETA: If you get right down to it, the Muslims and Christians both trace their roots back to the Jews anyways, and to the same God.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 5:10:12 PM EDT
It is just as F*&Ked up down the road in Richmond :Click HERE
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 6:47:59 PM EDT
i was going to type a bunch of stuff but it is much easier to just go here:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031700a.htm
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 7:14:55 PM EDT
revision of history to me.

Read what I wrote in the whole thread.

A poster is an inanimate object, not capable of doing anything but sitting there on the wall. I GUARANTEE, based on the second posted story, that this teacher did not just let the poster set on a wall and allow students to reflect on its meaning to them.

Also, is there really any question to whom George Washington was praying and that he was a devoted Christian and Mason?

....

I don't know what this teacher did with the mentioned poster, but I had a teacher that posted... well not exactly the same thing but documents that my be similarly questionable.
My senior year in HS(government sch.) my history teacher had a framed letter from R.E. Lee, resigning from the US Army. Next to it was a framed newspaper clipping that he had become a C.S.A. General.

Near graduation I asked the teacher about them; Just a piece of history. I was the only one that noticed it among the other paintings, posters, letters, etc... hanging on the walls.

After reading about this Washington story, I think about art class with the posters of naked women hanging on the walls... I guess the media wouldn't make such a fuss about that one, huh?
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 4:15:57 AM EDT
I posted this in the duplicate thread in the GD. I wonder how many will understand the significance. I see that at least one here does.



Link Posted: 3/2/2006 6:13:50 AM EDT
-hmm - the father of our country wearing a mini-skirt proves he was a cross-dresser?

Seriously, the apron he is wearing is a Mason's apron. I will let the conspiracy-theorists take it from here re: the FreeMasons.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 8:09:54 AM EDT
No conspiracy intended on my part.

In order for him to be a mason, he had to profess a belief in a supreme being.

In the picture he is not praying. But the act of wearing the arpon showing he is a mason displays his belief in a god. Would that be banned by the courts?

Now, carry that further, would a picture of him with a cross on his lapel be a proffession of faith?

I am just trying to figure out how far down the rabbit hole goes.



Link Posted: 3/2/2006 12:38:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/2/2006 12:42:17 PM EDT by Jacketch]

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By Jacketch:
How does a historical painting of Geo. Washington, that has no mention of any particular religion, promote a specific religion. Sounds like judicial revision of history to me.



Read what I wrote in the whole thread.

A poster is an inanimate object, not capable of doing anything but sitting there on the wall. I GUARANTEE, based on the second posted story, that this teacher did not just let the poster set on a wall and allow students to reflect on its meaning to them.

Also, is there really any question to whom George Washington was praying and that he was a devoted Christian and Mason?

I can almost assure you that the teacher used and referred to that poster as a MEANS to open conversation about religion and prayer.

While I am making some assumptions, it appears that what I have read backs up these assumptions. He was actively using that poster to further his agenda.

While lots of posters are allowed in schools that promote a lot of different things, one that is used to make religion a core of the learning environment is a "no-go".

As sad as that may be...

Sounds like the same argument they use concerning those evil guns

The teachers actions may or may not have been legal. The poster, which is not an animate object and does not promote a particular religion, is legal.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 12:43:27 PM EDT
its not that posters that make religion the core of a curriculum topic makes it a no-go...it is if the posters supports and professes one faith over the other that create problems...
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 12:49:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/2/2006 12:52:01 PM EDT by Jacketch]

Originally Posted By trio:
its not that posters that make religion the core of a curriculum topic makes it a no-go...it is if the posters supports and professes one faith over the other that create problems...

The poster doesn't support one religion.

He's looking for his car keys
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 1:58:31 PM EDT
LOL...indeed....damn horse kept dropping them

I dont think that poster is problematic in and of itself...im betting in the context of the other things and what he said is what created an issue...
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 2:29:34 AM EDT
In the end, those responsible for attempting to remove God from the hearts and minds of the people of this great nation will stand and be judged (and sentenced).
Top Top