Now It's Student Led Prayer at Football Games

[Faithofchristian]

You need a microphone and loudspeakers to practice Christianity? How did it survive so long before electricity?

Those that were back there, first met in their houses, then built a building to meet in, Common sense would tell you that.
Some people would meet by rivers on hill sides, or gather at people's homes for worship.
All that still goes on even to day. If you had ever belong to a church. You would know this.
But seeing you question such things speaks for itself.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Nope not at all, The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to make laws or to change laws, That's Congress who makes laws and changes laws. Not the Supreme Court.

Therefore when the Supreme Court changed what is written in the Constitution, the Supreme Court over step their boundaries, that's Congress business not the Supreme Court's.

Can you name one instance where the Supreme Court actually changed what is written in the Constitution? I suspect you can't.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

What did I say had read what I said, The Native American Indian's were the first to have a Religion in America.
Them people came here to practice their Religion in the way they want to, Just so happen it was the Christian Religion. That the pilgrims came here with.

In that same post you also said there was no religion other than the Christian religion when the Constitution was written.

Not my fault you can't argue in a straight line.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those that were back there, first met in their houses, then built a building to meet in, Common sense would tell you that.
Some people would meet by rivers on hill sides, or gather at people's homes for worship.

So not at sporting venues so much?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Nope not at all, The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to make laws or to change laws, That's Congress who makes laws and changes laws. Not the Supreme Court.

Therefore when the Supreme Court changed what is written in the Constitution, the Supreme Court over step their boundaries, that's Congress business not the Supreme Court's.

The Supreme Court INTERPRETS the law, and decides what is and isn't constitutional. And they disagree with you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Maybe to you, it's my ancestry. Not to be proven to you or anyone else.

Great. You can be directly decended from Mr. America himself for all I care, it doesn't make you a civics expert.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't have to prove my ancestry to you or anyone else. Pal

Sure. But if you want to be taken seriously in a civics discussion, you need to demonstrate some knowledge of civics, not just make vague claims about your ancestry.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Which is worse, ttrolling or legitimate ignorance and/or stupidity?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They have very much affect on my life. Thats why I can claim my ancestors was the first to come here.

You mean across the Bering Land Bridge?

The Bering Land Bridge: Peopling America

How many other people can claim that.

I have 3 people from the Mayflower in my family tree, if that counts for anything.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure. But if you want to be taken seriously in a civics discussion, you need to demonstrate some knowledge of civics, not just make vague claims about your ancestry.

Seriously? If anyone is taking him at all seriously after what he posted yesterday and this morning, I question their sanity.

This is either some decent trolling, or.....well, let's just say the phrase "too stupid to bother with" comes to mind.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You mean across the Bering Land Bridge?

The Bering Land Bridge: Peopling America


I have 3 people from the Mayflower in my family tree, if that counts for anything.

And I have an ancestor on the First Fleet, Australia's rough equivalent. Claiming special knowledge about our legal system or civics because of it is so absurd I'm still reeling that anyone would make such an argument.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Great. You can be directly decended from Mr. America himself for all I care, it doesn't make you a civics expert.

Nor does it you, pal

 

[Faithofchristian]

The Supreme Court INTERPRETS the law, and decides what is and isn't constitutional. And they disagree with you.

The Supreme Court does, since when does the Supreme Court disagrees with me.
Have you any proof of this, all you have is your talk,talk,talk -----------ect and --------ect
No Proof -------ect

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Supreme Court does, since when does the Supreme Court disagrees with me.

Since 1971:

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[4] which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:

1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)

 

[Faithofchristian]

In that same post you also said there was no religion other than the Christian religion when the Constitution was written.

Not my fault you can't argue in a straight line.

Who was the first Religion in this country, before it became the United States of America.
Go ahead this oughta be good.
Let's see just how much you actually do know about history.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Since 1971:

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia

So you say, heck anyone could throw a year that proves nothing, better check it again, see what the Supreme Court ruled way after that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you say, heck anyone could throw a year that proves nothing, better check it again, see what the Supreme Court ruled way after that.

You mean like this case from 2000?

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe - Wikipedia

The Court held that the policy allowing the student-led prayer at the football games was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens, depended on Lee v. Weisman.[3] It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."

 

[loganonekenobi]

The Supreme Court does, since when does the Supreme Court disagrees with me.
Have you any proof of this, all you have is your talk,talk,talk -----------ect and --------ect
No Proof -------ect

Since you seem to be the only Christian on this discussion I want to ask a simple question maybe 2. 1) do you think it would be lawful if in that same situation he/she would have said prayers over the loud speaker to Shiva or Satan to a mostly christian audience.
2) How do you think the mostly Christian audience would have reacted to that student?
I believe that if you use your empathy and intellictual honesty you can then understand why this becomes a problem.
Historically, Christians have never been favorable for equal rights to those who do not share their faith.
If you cannot answer those questions honestly I will be glad to assist you (with evidence of course).
Make my day.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Who was the first Religion in this country, before it became the United States of America.
Go ahead this oughta be good.
Let's see just how much you actually do know about history.

There were numerous religions present before the United States (or even the Thirteen Colonies) were founded. The First Nations tribes would have been as varied in beliefs as pre-Christian Europeans, perhaps more so.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You mean like this case from 2000?

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe - Wikipedia

No i.mean your false accusations