Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

As to the justice, I didn't do it on purpose-some weird auto correct based on a previous misspelling I guess. Its corrected. Obviously I was saying he was the conservative justice most likely to see it my way, so he would be an odd person for me to insult.

I am well aware of how cases are decided. Saying that the Establishment Clause should work to prevent citizens from "feeling" coerced into a religious exercise is well within the rubric.

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture. He is a showboat that would not consider other ways to address his need for religious expression; he also falsely claimed he had been terminated when he chose not to renew his contract. Most of all this case is an example of the need to press his religious beliefs on everyone around him, regardless of how that might impact someone who does not want to participate. Pure entitlement thinking.

It may be ruled Constitutional but I am sick of the the hypocrisy and perversion of the Gospel that this sort of thinking represents. If you are an employee of the state you can pray on your own time or pray privately while engaged in your work. That doesn't seem an oppressive concept.

---

So the answer [as you express it] for people expressing their religious freedom in a manner with which you disagree is to prohibit that expression through government force?

Maybe we should simply follow a constitutionally permissible method and simply ignore religious expressions with which we disagree? Or is minding our own business on how other people live their own lives also too perverse for you?

Oliver Wendell Holmes describes it as a the public marketplace of competing ideas. You don't get to silence other vendors. You do get to sell competing products.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

None of that stuff needs to be discussed with second graders, although school rules and discipline should include being kind to everybody.

One thing I have not seen discussed much with regard to schools usurping the role of parents: large groups of children do not have effective parents. If schools don't usurp their roles, who will?

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

As to the justice, I didn't do it on purpose-some weird auto correct based on a previous misspelling I guess. Its corrected. Obviously I was saying he was the conservative justice most likely to see it my way, so he would be an odd person for me to insult.

I am well aware of how cases are decided. Saying that the Establishment Clause should work to prevent citizens from "feeling" coerced into a religious exercise is well within the rubric.

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture. He is a showboat that would not consider other ways to address his need for religious expression; he also falsely claimed he had been terminated when he chose not to renew his contract. Most of all this case is an example of the need to press his religious beliefs on everyone around him, regardless of how that might impact someone who does not want to participate. Pure entitlement thinking.

It may be ruled Constitutional but I am sick of the the hypocrisy and perversion of the Gospel that this sort of thinking represents. If you are an employee of the state you can pray on your own time or pray privately while engaged in your work. That doesn't seem an oppressive concept.

---

So the answer [as you express it] for people expressing their religious freedom in a manner with which you disagree is to prohibit that expression through government force?

Maybe we should simply follow a constitutionally permissible method and simply ignore religious expressions with which we disagree? Or is minding our own business on how other people live their own lives also too perverse for you?

Oliver Wendell Holmes describes it as a the public marketplace of competing ideas. You don't get to silence other vendors. You do get to sell competing products.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

Not sure about Booray, but quash, Sam and LIQR are on board with sexually grooming children.

---

You're a good cultist. Your leader enjoys lying too.

---

it is a quality this country loves.. we keep electing them - Bush, Clinton, W Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.. all liars.

The thing that has changed is the people who have been lied to long enough and often enough that they dont know or care they are being lied to..

---

Canon knows it, but you're right that he doesn't care. Like most fanatics of the left and the right, he's a post-modern man. His truth is that which serves to increase power, nothing more or less.

---

there will always be a power increase in a vacuum. Sometimes the vacuum is natural and sometimes it is generated on purpose. Both sides are fighting for power and blaming the other side for doing what they want to or are doing

Classic example is claiming twitter will do all these things under Musk that they were already doing under previous leadership.

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

As to the justice, I didn't do it on purpose-some weird auto correct based on a previous misspelling I guess. Its corrected. Obviously I was saying he was the conservative justice most likely to see it my way, so he would be an odd person for me to insult.

I am well aware of how cases are decided. Saying that the Establishment Clause should work to prevent citizens from "feeling" coerced into a religious exercise is well within the rubric.

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture. He is a showboat that would not consider other ways to address his need for religious expression; he also falsely claimed he had been terminated when he chose not to renew his contract. Most of all this case is an example of the need to press his religious beliefs on everyone around him, regardless of how that might impact someone who does not want to participate. Pure entitlement thinking.

It may be ruled Constitutional but I am sick of the the hypocrisy and perversion of the Gospel that this sort of thinking represents. If you are an employee of the state you can pray on your own time or pray privately while engaged in your work. That doesn't seem an oppressive concept.

---

So the answer [as you express it] for people expressing their religious freedom in a manner with which you disagree is to prohibit that expression through government force?

Maybe we should simply follow a constitutionally permissible method and simply ignore religious expressions with which we disagree? Or is minding our own business on how other people live their own lives also too perverse for you?

Oliver Wendell Holmes describes it as a the public marketplace of competing ideas. You don't get to silence other vendors. You do get to sell competing products.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

Not sure about Booray, but quash, Sam and LIQR are on board with sexually grooming children.

---

You're a good cultist. Your leader enjoys lying too.

---

it is a quality this country loves.. we keep electing them - Bush, Clinton, W Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.. all liars.

The thing that has changed is the people who have been lied to long enough and often enough that they dont know or care they are being lied to..

---

Canon knows it, but you're right that he doesn't care. Like most fanatics of the left and the right, he's a post-modern man. His truth is that which serves to increase power, nothing more or less.

---

there will always be a power increase in a vacuum. Sometimes the vacuum is natural and sometimes it is generated on purpose. Both sides are fighting for power and blaming the other side for doing what they want to or are doing

Classic example is claiming twitter will do all these things under Musk that they were already doing under previous leadership.

---

Much of what's loosely called lying in politics is really more like sales talk. It differs from a certain nihilistic use of language that's seen almost exclusively in the higher levels of academia and the lowest reaches of Trump fandom. For example, most people who overuse the term "racist" aren't lying. They just have a poor understanding of what the word means. The normal, civilized response is to try to educate them, or if that's not possible then to ignore them. The Trumpian response is to seize on a word like "groomer" and intentionally do the same thing with it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

As to the justice, I didn't do it on purpose-some weird auto correct based on a previous misspelling I guess. Its corrected. Obviously I was saying he was the conservative justice most likely to see it my way, so he would be an odd person for me to insult.

I am well aware of how cases are decided. Saying that the Establishment Clause should work to prevent citizens from "feeling" coerced into a religious exercise is well within the rubric.

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture. He is a showboat that would not consider other ways to address his need for religious expression; he also falsely claimed he had been terminated when he chose not to renew his contract. Most of all this case is an example of the need to press his religious beliefs on everyone around him, regardless of how that might impact someone who does not want to participate. Pure entitlement thinking.

It may be ruled Constitutional but I am sick of the the hypocrisy and perversion of the Gospel that this sort of thinking represents. If you are an employee of the state you can pray on your own time or pray privately while engaged in your work. That doesn't seem an oppressive concept.

---

So the answer [as you express it] for people expressing their religious freedom in a manner with which you disagree is to prohibit that expression through government force?

Maybe we should simply follow a constitutionally permissible method and simply ignore religious expressions with which we disagree? Or is minding our own business on how other people live their own lives also too perverse for you?

Oliver Wendell Holmes describes it as a the public marketplace of competing ideas. You don't get to silence other vendors. You do get to sell competing products.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

Not sure about Booray, but quash, Sam and LIQR are on board with sexually grooming children.

---

You're a good cultist. Your leader enjoys lying too.

---

it is a quality this country loves.. we keep electing them - Bush, Clinton, W Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.. all liars.

The thing that has changed is the people who have been lied to long enough and often enough that they dont know or care they are being lied to..

---

Canon knows it, but you're right that he doesn't care. Like most fanatics of the left and the right, he's a post-modern man. His truth is that which serves to increase power, nothing more or less.

---

Ok, groomer.

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

My guess is that even if the game was over, he was still on duty. An at-work teacher leading students in Christian prayer implicates establishment clause concerns.

---

What about this?

leading students in voluntary Christian prayer

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ultimately leads to depriving any government employee of free speech at any time, including worship, to include in one's own home when others might be present.

---

When carried to an extreme, which cases haven't allowed. Booray limited his answer to "at work". You added "at home".

---

If 1st amendment rights are not sacrosanct on government property, then they are not safe anywhere. Progressives are not pursuing classical notions of liberty in this arena. They are trying to destroy instruments of oppression, religion being at the top of the list. It is a matter of time before a case like this is filed to cover a coach's actions at home. The premise will be simple - a coach may not engage in religious expression anywhere/anytime a person he has power over might be present. Yes, many such cases will fail. But progressives never, ever give up. They will keep filing cases. Eventually, they will find a judicial activist to give them purchase. That's because the premise of Booray's argument - "power" - cedes the initiative to progressives, as power is what systemic oppression is all about! It hangs in the air. Wherever we are, we must search until we find it. Or so the anti-racist consultants would say.

That line of reasoning may sound crazy, but it is exactly what's being taught in public education today. Critical Theory. Oppression is everywhere. Find it. Kill it. Even in a coach's living room.

Tyranny knows no bounds.....

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

As to the justice, I didn't do it on purpose-some weird auto correct based on a previous misspelling I guess. Its corrected. Obviously I was saying he was the conservative justice most likely to see it my way, so he would be an odd person for me to insult.

I am well aware of how cases are decided. Saying that the Establishment Clause should work to prevent citizens from "feeling" coerced into a religious exercise is well within the rubric.

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture. He is a showboat that would not consider other ways to address his need for religious expression; he also falsely claimed he had been terminated when he chose not to renew his contract. Most of all this case is an example of the need to press his religious beliefs on everyone around him, regardless of how that might impact someone who does not want to participate. Pure entitlement thinking.

It may be ruled Constitutional but I am sick of the the hypocrisy and perversion of the Gospel that this sort of thinking represents. If you are an employee of the state you can pray on your own time or pray privately while engaged in your work. That doesn't seem an oppressive concept.

---

So the answer [as you express it] for people expressing their religious freedom in a manner with which you disagree is to prohibit that expression through government force?

Maybe we should simply follow a constitutionally permissible method and simply ignore religious expressions with which we disagree? Or is minding our own business on how other people live their own lives also too perverse for you?

Oliver Wendell Holmes describes it as a the public marketplace of competing ideas. You don't get to silence other vendors. You do get to sell competing products.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

None of that stuff needs to be discussed with second graders, although school rules and discipline should include being kind to everybody.

One thing I have not seen discussed much with regard to schools usurping the role of parents: large groups of children do not have effective parents. If schools don't usurp their roles, who will?

---

Therein lies another slippery slope into a quagmire.

Who gets to decide what kids don't have effective parents? What is the criteria for identifying ineffective parents?

We all know of kids who have been neglected and physically abused. It is really hard to work with them, and not be affected by their plight. But where the line is drawn to show where neglect and abuse end, and different culture and morality begins is extremely tough to come up with. Plus who gets to place that line makes a big difference.

Schools need to help guide troubled kids to other outside resources at times (like CPS) and not take on that full role themselves. Sometimes they need to be able to make accommodations for learning issues. But when they start taking on any role of parents for some, it usually (easily) morphs into an expectation that the school can do that for all families.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

As to the justice, I didn't do it on purpose-some weird auto correct based on a previous misspelling I guess. Its corrected. Obviously I was saying he was the conservative justice most likely to see it my way, so he would be an odd person for me to insult.

I am well aware of how cases are decided. Saying that the Establishment Clause should work to prevent citizens from "feeling" coerced into a religious exercise is well within the rubric.

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture. He is a showboat that would not consider other ways to address his need for religious expression; he also falsely claimed he had been terminated when he chose not to renew his contract. Most of all this case is an example of the need to press his religious beliefs on everyone around him, regardless of how that might impact someone who does not want to participate. Pure entitlement thinking.

It may be ruled Constitutional but I am sick of the the hypocrisy and perversion of the Gospel that this sort of thinking represents. If you are an employee of the state you can pray on your own time or pray privately while engaged in your work. That doesn't seem an oppressive concept.

---

So the answer [as you express it] for people expressing their religious freedom in a manner with which you disagree is to prohibit that expression through government force?

Maybe we should simply follow a constitutionally permissible method and simply ignore religious expressions with which we disagree? Or is minding our own business on how other people live their own lives also too perverse for you?

Oliver Wendell Holmes describes it as a the public marketplace of competing ideas. You don't get to silence other vendors. You do get to sell competing products.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

None of that stuff needs to be discussed with second graders, although school rules and discipline should include being kind to everybody.

One thing I have not seen discussed much with regard to schools usurping the role of parents: large groups of children do not have effective parents. If schools don't usurp their roles, who will?

---

Therein lies another slippery slope into a quagmire.

Who gets to decide what kids don't have effective parents? What is the criteria for identifying ineffective parents?

We all know of kids who have been neglected and physically abused. It is really hard to work with them, and not be affected by their plight. But where the line is drawn to show where neglect and abuse end, and different culture and morality begins is extremely tough to come up with. Plus who gets to place that line makes a big difference.

Schools need to help guide troubled kids to other outside resources at times (like CPS) and not take on that full role themselves. Sometimes they need to be able to make accommodations for learning issues. But when they start taking on any role of parents for some, it usually (easily) morphs into an expectation that the school can do that for all families.

---

I agree with all that, but society does not. We have spent the last 50 years telling schools to take on many roles previously held by parents. Now we are upset with educators for taking on roles previously held by parents.

It is a difficult issue.

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

My guess is that even if the game was over, he was still on duty. An at-work teacher leading students in Christian prayer implicates establishment clause concerns.

---

What about this?

leading students in voluntary Christian prayer

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ultimately leads to depriving any government employee of free speech at any time, including worship, to include in one's own home when others might be present.

---

When carried to an extreme, which cases haven't allowed. Booray limited his answer to "at work". You added "at home".

---

If 1st amendment rights are not sacrosanct on government property, then they are not safe anywhere. Progressives are not pursuing classical notions of liberty in this arena. They are trying to destroy instruments of oppression, religion being at the top of the list. It is a matter of time before a case like this is filed to cover a coach's actions at home. The premise will be simple - a coach may not engage in religious expression anywhere/anytime a person he has power over might be present. Yes, many such cases will fail. But progressives never, ever give up. They will keep filing cases. Eventually, they will find a judicial activist to give them purchase. That's because the premise of Booray's argument - "power" - cedes the initiative to progressives, as power is what systemic oppression is all about! It hangs in the air. Wherever we are, we must search until we find it. Or so the anti-racist consultants would say.

That line of reasoning may sound crazy, but it is exactly what's being taught in public education today. Critical Theory. Oppression is everywhere. Find it. Kill it. Even in a coach's living room.

Tyranny knows no bounds.....

---

The whole point of laws and courts is to draw the boundary between legal and illegal conduct. The fact that someone will later ask to move the line again is no reason not to put the line where it should be now.

And pretending that it is only progressives who push their agenda is over-the-top. Unless you want to say Roe v. Wade is good law and should not be disturbed.

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

My guess is that even if the game was over, he was still on duty. An at-work teacher leading students in Christian prayer implicates establishment clause concerns.

---

What about this?

leading students in voluntary Christian prayer

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ultimately leads to depriving any government employee of free speech at any time, including worship, to include in one's own home when others might be present.

---

When carried to an extreme, which cases haven't allowed. Booray limited his answer to "at work". You added "at home".

---

If 1st amendment rights are not sacrosanct on government property, then they are not safe anywhere. Progressives are not pursuing classical notions of liberty in this arena. They are trying to destroy instruments of oppression, religion being at the top of the list. It is a matter of time before a case like this is filed to cover a coach's actions at home. The premise will be simple - a coach may not engage in religious expression anywhere/anytime a person he has power over might be present. Yes, many such cases will fail. But progressives never, ever give up. They will keep filing cases. Eventually, they will find a judicial activist to give them purchase. That's because the premise of Booray's argument - "power" - cedes the initiative to progressives, as power is what systemic oppression is all about! It hangs in the air. Wherever we are, we must search until we find it. Or so the anti-racist consultants would say.

That line of reasoning may sound crazy, but it is exactly what's being taught in public education today. Critical Theory. Oppression is everywhere. Find it. Kill it. Even in a coach's living room.

Tyranny knows no bounds.....

---

The whole point of laws and courts is to draw the boundary between legal and illegal conduct. The fact that someone will later ask to move the line again is no reason not to put the line where it should be now.

And pretending that it is only progressives who push their agenda is over-the-top. Unless you want to say Roe v. Wade is good law and should not be disturbed.

---

Roe v. Wade is a good law and should not be disturbed. Government should never have a legal right over our bodies.

They shouldn't tell you that you can't have an abortion. They shouldn't be able to make you get a vaccine.

C. Jordan said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

The problem is that he's imposing his faith on his team in an activity that's basically compulsory.

Public school teachers can't and shouldn't lead prayers in their classes and coaches can't and shouldn't either.

But in today's SCOTUS atmosphere where free exercise is being exalted over no establishment, he just might prevail.

---

Good. The judicial branch has distorted and *******ized "no establishment" to the point it is unrecognizable from the actual original intent of the Constitution. It should be drawn back into the realm of common sense, and free exercise absolutely should be exalted over the silly, extreme space that no establishment currently exists in.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

My guess is that even if the game was over, he was still on duty. An at-work teacher leading students in Christian prayer implicates establishment clause concerns.

---

What about this?

leading students in voluntary Christian prayer

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ultimately leads to depriving any government employee of free speech at any time, including worship, to include in one's own home when others might be present.

---

When carried to an extreme, which cases haven't allowed. Booray limited his answer to "at work". You added "at home".

---

If 1st amendment rights are not sacrosanct on government property, then they are not safe anywhere. Progressives are not pursuing classical notions of liberty in this arena. They are trying to destroy instruments of oppression, religion being at the top of the list. It is a matter of time before a case like this is filed to cover a coach's actions at home. The premise will be simple - a coach may not engage in religious expression anywhere/anytime a person he has power over might be present. Yes, many such cases will fail. But progressives never, ever give up. They will keep filing cases. Eventually, they will find a judicial activist to give them purchase. That's because the premise of Booray's argument - "power" - cedes the initiative to progressives, as power is what systemic oppression is all about! It hangs in the air. Wherever we are, we must search until we find it. Or so the anti-racist consultants would say.

That line of reasoning may sound crazy, but it is exactly what's being taught in public education today. Critical Theory. Oppression is everywhere. Find it. Kill it. Even in a coach's living room.

Tyranny knows no bounds.....

---

The whole point of laws and courts is to draw the boundary between legal and illegal conduct. The fact that someone will later ask to move the line again is no reason not to put the line where it should be now.

And pretending that it is only progressives who push their agenda is over-the-top. Unless you want to say Roe v. Wade is good law and should not be disturbed.

---

Roe v. Wade is a good law and should not be disturbed. Government should never have a legal right over our bodies.

They shouldn't tell you that you can't have an abortion. They shouldn't be able to make you get a vaccine.

---

Laws should (and do) prevent you from taking the life of another human being. If you engage in activity that creates a human life, you are under the obligation to care and provide for it. You can't leave your two year old in a trash can. And you shouldn't be able to slaughter your child that's younger than that either.

Roe v Wade absolutely should be disturbed. History will view this period of western civilization as utterly barbaric for the mass extermination of human life it has endorsed.

---

Then there needs to be a law that clearly defines life at conception. If our laws defined life at conception, then yes, get rid of Roe V. Wade. There's debate over when life begins. The left doesn't view a fetus as life. The right defines a fetus as life. The federal gov't needs to either cede power to the state regarding abortions laws or they need to clearly define when life begins. Until then, hands of our bodies.

I"m against abortion and think it's disgusting. I personally believe life begins at conception, but in order to a have a free society, we can't just have the gov't give us we want and take away what he hate - at the whim of whatever.

Conservatives are going it at wrong, they want a court that will overturn Roe V. Wade, what they should push for is politicians that will make it a law that life begins at conception. Get those candidates elected, get that CLEAR legal definition in place, then you'll have my support to overturn Roe V. Wade.

To have a fair and functioning society there has to be laws. To have a free society, the got'vt needs to strictily follow those laws and not be allowed outside those limits. We can't let gov't step outside their lanes because we want something or because we hate something.

The same power we want the gov't to have to tell women they can't get an abortion will be the same power they gov't will use to force vaccinations or tattoos or whatever. Hell, in the future, it will the same power the gov't will use to force people to get microchipped. Might not happen in my lifetime, but it's coming.

Booray said:

---

What about this?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

leading students in voluntary Christian prayer

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ultimately leads to depriving any government employee of free speech at any time, including worship, to include in one's own home when others might be present.

---

When carried to an extreme, which cases haven't allowed. Booray limited his answer to "at work". You added "at home".

---

If 1st amendment rights are not sacrosanct on government property, then they are not safe anywhere. Progressives are not pursuing classical notions of liberty in this arena. They are trying to destroy instruments of oppression, religion being at the top of the list. It is a matter of time before a case like this is filed to cover a coach's actions at home. The premise will be simple - a coach may not engage in religious expression anywhere/anytime a person he has power over might be present. Yes, many such cases will fail. But progressives never, ever give up. They will keep filing cases. Eventually, they will find a judicial activist to give them purchase. That's because the premise of Booray's argument - "power" - cedes the initiative to progressives, as power is what systemic oppression is all about! It hangs in the air. Wherever we are, we must search until we find it. Or so the anti-racist consultants would say.

That line of reasoning may sound crazy, but it is exactly what's being taught in public education today. Critical Theory. Oppression is everywhere. Find it. Kill it. Even in a coach's living room.

Tyranny knows no bounds.....

---

The whole point of laws and courts is to draw the boundary between legal and illegal conduct. The fact that someone will later ask to move the line again is no reason not to put the line where it should be now.

And pretending that it is only progressives who push their agenda is over-the-top. Unless you want to say Roe v. Wade is good law and should not be disturbed.

---

I didn't say only progressives push agendas. I noted the philosophical worldview of progressivism and the plain reality that the legal trend on religious liberty is toward less rather than more, thanks to Curlett plus stare decisis. It will take a landmark case to reverse that. The case in question could well be the one.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

Thanks for posting. I missed it. It is from Ninth Circuit out of Washington State
Free exercise v Establishment Clause
The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."[url=https://ballotpedia.org/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District#cite_note-qp-1][1][/url]

Here is a good summary:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-35222/20-35222-2021-03-18.html
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, a former high school football coach, alleging violation of his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the school district prohibited him from praying at the end of football games while kneeling on the fifty-yard line, surrounded by players and occasionally community members.

The panel held that the school district's allowance of plaintiff's conduct would violate the Establishment Clause and thus the school district's efforts to prevent the conduct did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights nor his rights under Title VII. The panel rejected plaintiff's free speech and free exercise claims, concluding that the record before it and binding Supreme Court precedent compel the conclusion that the school district would have violated the Establishment Clause by allowing plaintiff to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him. Furthermore, plaintiff's attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to the school district compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties. In this case, the school district tried to reach an accommodation for plaintiff, but that was spurned by his insisting that he be allowed to pray immediately after the conclusion of each game, likely surrounded by students who felt pressured to join him.

The panel also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII claims alleging failure to rehire, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation failed. The panel explained that plaintiff did not show that he was adequately performing his job; plaintiff's conduct is clearly dissimilar to the other personal activities of assistant coaches he cites and thus he cannot make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment; the school district could not reasonably accommodate plaintiff's practice without undue hardship; and the school district had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment actions.

---

Yeah, he won't win on his disparate treatment claims, but that "legitimate nondiscrimination reason" is people rushing the field. After a football game. Waaay after the clock had actually expired...

---

The whole notion that private speech can be restricted after an official event (not during) by a government employee is dubious, regardless of however long the idea has been used as a legal cudgel with which to beat down Christianity.

I would be curious why people rushed the field. Does anyone have clarity on that? Was it in opposition to the prayer, in support of it or something completely disconnected? If it was in support, this seems like simply a culture war issue where the left is afraid that there may be some grass roots movement that could take hold and popularize morality they hate.

---

My guess is that even if the game was over, he was still on duty. An at-work teacher leading students in Christian prayer implicates establishment clause concerns.

---

What about this?

leading students in voluntary Christian prayer

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ultimately leads to depriving any government employee of free speech at any time, including worship, to include in one's own home when others might be present.

---

When carried to an extreme, which cases haven't allowed. Booray limited his answer to "at work". You added "at home".

---

If 1st amendment rights are not sacrosanct on government property, then they are not safe anywhere. Progressives are not pursuing classical notions of liberty in this arena. They are trying to destroy instruments of oppression, religion being at the top of the list. It is a matter of time before a case like this is filed to cover a coach's actions at home. The premise will be simple - a coach may not engage in religious expression anywhere/anytime a person he has power over might be present. Yes, many such cases will fail. But progressives never, ever give up. They will keep filing cases. Eventually, they will find a judicial activist to give them purchase. That's because the premise of Booray's argument - "power" - cedes the initiative to progressives, as power is what systemic oppression is all about! It hangs in the air. Wherever we are, we must search until we find it. Or so the anti-racist consultants would say.

That line of reasoning may sound crazy, but it is exactly what's being taught in public education today. Critical Theory. Oppression is everywhere. Find it. Kill it. Even in a coach's living room.

Tyranny knows no bounds.....

---

The whole point of laws and courts is to draw the boundary between legal and illegal conduct. The fact that someone will later ask to move the line again is no reason not to put the line where it should be now.

And pretending that it is only progressives who push their agenda is over-the-top. Unless you want to say Roe v. Wade is good law and should not be disturbed.

---

Roe v. Wade is a good law and should not be disturbed. Government should never have a legal right over our bodies.

They shouldn't tell you that you can't have an abortion. They shouldn't be able to make you get a vaccine.

---

Laws should (and do) prevent you from taking the life of another human being. If you engage in activity that creates a human life, you are under the obligation to care and provide for it. You can't leave your two year old in a trash can. And you shouldn't be able to slaughter your child that's younger than that either.

Roe v Wade absolutely should be disturbed. History will view this period of western civilization as utterly barbaric for the mass extermination of human life it has endorsed.

---

Then there needs to be a law that clearly defines life at conception. If our laws defined life at conception, then yes, get rid of Roe V. Wade. There's debate over when life begins. The left doesn't view a fetus as life. The right defines a fetus as life. The federal gov't needs to either cede power to the state regarding abortions laws or they need to clearly define when life begins. Until then, hands of our bodies.

I"m against abortion and think it's disgusting. I personally believe life begins at conception, but in order to a have a free society, we can't just have the gov't give us we want and take away what he hate - at the whim of whatever.

Conservatives are going it at wrong, they want a court that will overturn Roe V. Wade, what they should push for is politicians that will make it a law that life begins at conception. Get those candidates elected, get that CLEAR legal definition in place, then you'll have my support to overturn Roe V. Wade.

To have a fair and functioning society there has to be laws. To have a free society, the got'vt needs to strictily follow those laws and not be allowed outside those limits. We can't let gov't step outside their lanes because we want something or because we hate something.

The same power we want the gov't to have to tell women they can't get an abortion will be the same power they gov't will use to force vaccinations or tattoos or whatever. Hell, in the future, it will the same power the gov't will use to force people to get microchipped. Might not happen in my lifetime, but it's coming.

---

. Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished%85%85and those people are psychopaths%85just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

C Jordan: "We would go far in promoting Christian culture in our country if we started to act like Christ."

You do recall that Scripture cites an occasion where Christ made a DIY whip and turned over a bunch of tables at a mall, right?

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

Once again, this has nothing do with jews, or special special need or race. You're trying to compare apples and oranges as all of these humans have been born. What's not holding water is the argument you're trying to make using comparisons that aren't equal.

To you it's an objective fact, but unfortunately to others, it's an opinion. In both cases, the fact is that the government hasn't established law that states life begins at conception.

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

Look, this is a nation of laws and those laws should be followed. If there's something you don't like, then change the law or add an amendment to the Constitution.

Booray said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Booray said:

---

Educators are in power positions vis-a-vis their students. Whether it is giving grades or deciding playing time, there are reasons for students to please a teacher or coach beyond sharing the educator's views. In addition, when public displays encourage large groups of students to participate, there is peer pressure that results. So while the coach and his followers were likely sincere in their beliefs and had no intent to ostracize or punish anyone who chose not to participate, these type of activities can never be said to be truly voluntary for everyone.

---

Except that SCOTUS has previously ruled [on multiple occasions] that wearing religious based attire, pins/crosses, lent ash, etc. do not violate the establishment clause and are first amendment protected. If the mere exercise of first amendment activity constitutes government coercion, these cases would all be overturned.

You are tilting at a windmill that is already slain.

---

There is a difference in those cases. Students are unlikely to feel compelled to respond to religious adornment. If they do not respond, they would not be singled out as "non-believers." Here by not participating they would be identified as not practicing the right religion.

And I am not tilting at anything. First, I said the cases raises establishment issues, I did not say that the conduct violated the Establishment Clause. Second, i have little doubt how this case will end-it will be a 5-4 reversal of the 9th Circuit with Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney, Gorsuch and Alito in the majority. That doesn't mean I think it is a correct result, but I am not under any illusions. The dominant culture will become more dominant and probably ratchet their whining about being oppressed another notch, from 11 to 12. Maybe Gorsuch will surprise me.

---

1. Purposefully misspelling SCOTUS Justices' names isn't clever. It is childish.

2. Cases aren't decided based upon feelings. Cases are determined by law and possibly fact. Feelings are irrelevant. Feeling violated isn't the same as rights being violated.

3. Name calling [labeling those with who you obviously disagree as "whiners"] isn't clever. It is intellectual weakness.

---

As to the justice, I didn't do it on purpose-some weird auto correct based on a previous misspelling I guess. Its corrected. Obviously I was saying he was the conservative justice most likely to see it my way, so he would be an odd person for me to insult.

I am well aware of how cases are decided. Saying that the Establishment Clause should work to prevent citizens from "feeling" coerced into a religious exercise is well within the rubric.

And I am sorry, but the plaintiff in this case is emblematic of the incessant whining that comes from the dominant culture. He is a showboat that would not consider other ways to address his need for religious expression; he also falsely claimed he had been terminated when he chose not to renew his contract. Most of all this case is an example of the need to press his religious beliefs on everyone around him, regardless of how that might impact someone who does not want to participate. Pure entitlement thinking.

It may be ruled Constitutional but I am sick of the the hypocrisy and perversion of the Gospel that this sort of thinking represents. If you are an employee of the state you can pray on your own time or pray privately while engaged in your work. That doesn't seem an oppressive concept.

---

So the answer [as you express it] for people expressing their religious freedom in a manner with which you disagree is to prohibit that expression through government force?

Maybe we should simply follow a constitutionally permissible method and simply ignore religious expressions with which we disagree? Or is minding our own business on how other people live their own lives also too perverse for you?

Oliver Wendell Holmes describes it as a the public marketplace of competing ideas. You don't get to silence other vendors. You do get to sell competing products.

---

Did I not specifically say that I was fine with public prayer after a school function as long as it was led by someone who was not a working state actor?

I am not suppressing the expression of religious thought other than to say the government should not be the vehicle for that expression. It is not that complicated and you are too smart to have misunderstood it. You are intentionally mischaracterizing.

---

So, where do you come in on state actors teaching 2nd graders that gender identity is fluid, boys can grow up to be fine young women and it's normal to be gay?

---

None of that stuff needs to be discussed with second graders, although school rules and discipline should include being kind to everybody.

One thing I have not seen discussed much with regard to schools usurping the role of parents: large groups of children do not have effective parents. If schools don't usurp their roles, who will?

---

Therein lies another slippery slope into a quagmire.

Who gets to decide what kids don't have effective parents? What is the criteria for identifying ineffective parents?

We all know of kids who have been neglected and physically abused. It is really hard to work with them, and not be affected by their plight. But where the line is drawn to show where neglect and abuse end, and different culture and morality begins is extremely tough to come up with. Plus who gets to place that line makes a big difference.

Schools need to help guide troubled kids to other outside resources at times (like CPS) and not take on that full role themselves. Sometimes they need to be able to make accommodations for learning issues. But when they start taking on any role of parents for some, it usually (easily) morphs into an expectation that the school can do that for all families.

---

I agree with all that, but society does not. We have spent the last 50 years telling schools to take on many roles previously held by parents. Now we are upset with educators for taking on roles previously held by parents.

It is a difficult issue.

---

And don't forget that school boards are upset about parents trying to take some of those roles back.

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

Once again, this has nothing do with jews, or special special need or race. You're trying to compare apples and oranges as all of these humans have been born. What's not holding water is the argument you're trying to make using comparisons that aren't equal.

To you it's an objective fact, but unfortunately to others, it's an opinion. In both cases, the fact is that the government hasn't established law that states life begins at conception.

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

Look, this is a nation of laws and those laws should be followed. If there's something you don't like, then change the law or add an amendment to the Constitution.

---

1. Something can't be an objective fact to one person and not another. You apparently don't understand the concept of objectivity.

2. The government doesn't have to establish a law stating when life begins. Science does that. It makes zero sense to say that the government has to make laws defining everything. Has it made a law saying that it isn't ok to kill asian females, for example, or does that kinda just go without saying?

3. I agree that laws should be followed. No law has ever been passed saying it's ok to kill people if they haven't exited the vagina yet. A court fabricated a constitutional "right" to kill those people, and that court's decision should be overturned. I don't need to lobby for a "law" that defines when life begins. That isn't even in question. There is a meaningless semantics debate about whether certain lives qualify as a "person" . . . and that only "persons" are protected from harm . . . but any semi-honest human being knows that's a ridiculous distinction made solely so people can justify killing other humans they don't want to have to care for.

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

Once again, this has nothing do with jews, or special special need or race. You're trying to compare apples and oranges as all of these humans have been born. What's not holding water is the argument you're trying to make using comparisons that aren't equal.

To you it's an objective fact, but unfortunately to others, it's an opinion. In both cases, the fact is that the government hasn't established law that states life begins at conception.

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

Look, this is a nation of laws and those laws should be followed. If there's something you don't like, then change the law or add an amendment to the Constitution.

---

The Holocaust was preceded by the "mercy" killing of "defective" newborns (Downs syndrome and physical handicaps) and directly involved doctors and the German medical establishment. It was then expanded to the institutions for handicapped people and mental patients. A number of those same doctors (some who had international reputations in the medical field) in the mercy killing program ended up working in or alongside the death camps. They were not viewed as evil or monsters until after the war. That is why he is connecting the two. Nazi Doctors by Robert Lifton covers this angle.

A philosophy professor at Baylor once told the class I was in that it was perfectly fine for us to argue for abortion in the class discussion, but we could not argue that the unborn child is not a human life: that is an unscientific position. You can argue that it does not deserve the same protections as other human life; but it's factually wrong to say it is not human life.
What is the difference in ending the life of baby right after it is born or in the womb because it has Downs syndrome?

The events of the 1930's and 1940's shows why you don't want to get doctors involved in killing human life. It's a bad road to go down.

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

---

Seems silly. Is there a law that states that life ends at death?

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

Once again, this has nothing do with jews, or special special need or race. You're trying to compare apples and oranges as all of these humans have been born. What's not holding water is the argument you're trying to make using comparisons that aren't equal.

To you it's an objective fact, but unfortunately to others, it's an opinion. In both cases, the fact is that the government hasn't established law that states life begins at conception.

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

Look, this is a nation of laws and those laws should be followed. If there's something you don't like, then change the law or add an amendment to the Constitution.

---

1. Something can't be an objective fact to one person and not another. You apparently don't understand the concept of objectivity.

2. The government doesn't have to establish a law stating when life begins. Science does that. It makes zero sense to say that the government has to make laws defining everything. Has it made a law saying that it isn't ok to kill asian females, for example, or does that kinda just go without saying?

3. I agree that laws should be followed. No law has ever been passed saying it's ok to kill people if they haven't exited the vagina yet. A court fabricated a constitutional "right" to kill those people, and that court's decision should be overturned. I don't need to lobby for a "law" that defines when life begins. That isn't even in question. There is a meaningless semantics debate about whether certain lives qualify as a "person" . . . and that only "persons" are protected from harm . . . but any semi-honest human being knows that's a ridiculous distinction made solely so people can justify killing other humans they don't want to have to care for.

---

Actually it's you that doesn't undertand the concept of objective fact. You try to assert your opinion that a fetus is equal to life, which is fine, it's your opinion, but there's been a debate for decades whether a fetus is a life and a human being. One side says it's a live human, the other side says it's not a human just a bunch of cells. The fact there's been a debate and it hasn't be settled, by definition makes it a subjective fact, not an objective fact.

Once again, what's up with all the races? Asians this time? And once again, I'll point out that you're trying use humans that have been born to try and make a point that has zero to do with the argument.

You're trying to argue that I'm pro-abortion. I'm arguing what power should the gov't have over someone's body. There's a big damn difference. Unless you can't distinguish between big government and freedom, which apparently you cannot.

Look guy, if I was president, I would defund planned parenthood, speak against abortion and raise awareness that adoption is an option. I would never, however, tell a woman that my government has control over her body, unless there was a law stating that life begins at conception... and wouldn't you know it... that's a law I would push for. Geesh, take a Xanax.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

---

Seems silly. Is there a law that states that life ends at death?

---

Well, there's real no debate that dead people are lifeless.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

Once again, this has nothing do with jews, or special special need or race. You're trying to compare apples and oranges as all of these humans have been born. What's not holding water is the argument you're trying to make using comparisons that aren't equal.

To you it's an objective fact, but unfortunately to others, it's an opinion. In both cases, the fact is that the government hasn't established law that states life begins at conception.

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

Look, this is a nation of laws and those laws should be followed. If there's something you don't like, then change the law or add an amendment to the Constitution.

---

The Holocaust was preceded by the "mercy" killing of "defective" newborns (Downs syndrome and physical handicaps) and directly involved doctors and the German medical establishment. It was then expanded to the institutions for handicapped people and mental patients. A number of those same doctors (some who had international reputations in the medical field) in the mercy killing program ended up working in or alongside the death camps. They were not viewed as evil or monsters until after the war. That is why he is connecting the two. Nazi Doctors by Robert Lifton covers this angle.

A philosophy professor at Baylor once told the class I was in that it was perfectly fine for us to argue for abortion in the class discussion, but we could not argue that the unborn child is not a human life: that is an unscientific position. You can argue that it does not deserve the same protections as other human life; but it's factually wrong to say it is not human life.
What is the difference in ending the life of baby right after it is born or in the womb because it has Downs syndrome?

The events of the 1930's and 1940's shows why you don't want to get doctors involved in killing human life. It's a bad road to go down.

---

Not to mention one of the most memory-holed aspects of history is that Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, who was a National Socialist-styled eugenicist. I think the argument above is perfect - there should be no debate about whether a baby in the womb is a life but what protections society should afford that life.

Here is the easiest way to win the debate with a pro-abortion person: should a woman or couple be able to test their baby for the so-called "gay gene" or sex and terminate the pregnancy based solely on whether the baby has the "gay gene" or is female. Their heads will explode.

Legally, Roe is terrible and should be overturned. It is not a constitutional issue at all and should be decided by the states.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

Once again, this has nothing do with jews, or special special need or race. You're trying to compare apples and oranges as all of these humans have been born. What's not holding water is the argument you're trying to make using comparisons that aren't equal.

To you it's an objective fact, but unfortunately to others, it's an opinion. In both cases, the fact is that the government hasn't established law that states life begins at conception.

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

Look, this is a nation of laws and those laws should be followed. If there's something you don't like, then change the law or add an amendment to the Constitution.

---

The Holocaust was preceded by the "mercy" killing of "defective" newborns (Downs syndrome and physical handicaps) and directly involved doctors and the German medical establishment. It was then expanded to the institutions for handicapped people and mental patients. A number of those same doctors (some who had international reputations in the medical field) in the mercy killing program ended up working in or alongside the death camps. They were not viewed as evil or monsters until after the war. That is why he is connecting the two. Nazi Doctors by Robert Lifton covers this angle.

A philosophy professor at Baylor once told the class I was in that it was perfectly fine for us to argue for abortion in the class discussion, but we could not argue that the unborn child is not a human life: that is an unscientific position. You can argue that it does not deserve the same protections as other human life; but it's factually wrong to say it is not human life.
What is the difference in ending the life of baby right after it is born or in the womb because it has Downs syndrome?

The events of the 1930's and 1940's shows why you don't want to get doctors involved in killing human life. It's a bad road to go down.

---

So where does human life begin? At conception? At a heart beat? After X number of weeks? There are people that would argue that people who say a fetus is human life is an unscientific positiont - hence the raging debate for the last several decades.

Did you know that about (or more than) 2/3 of women in this country get abortions when prenatal testing indicates the child will have down syndrome? - perhaps there should a clear legal definition that life begins at conception. It would be easier to make such abortions illegal.

Rawhide said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

---

Seems silly. Is there a law that states that life ends at death?

---

Well, there's real no debate that dead people are lifeless.

---

Then why debate that something alive is alive?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

---

Seems silly. Is there a law that states that life ends at death?

---

End of life can be tricky. Brain dead but organs still function

GrowlTowel said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

---

Seems silly. Is there a law that states that life ends at death?

---

Well, there's real no debate that dead people are lifeless.

---

Then why debate that something alive is alive?

---

I'm not debating that. All of you are trying to say that I'm debating what is or isn't alive or is or is not a human.

I'm arguing what power does the government have over someone's "alive" body. My argument is they can settle that debate with a clear legal definition of when life begins.

Like I said earlier, if we give government the power to tell a woman she can't have a choice over her own body because they believe a fetus is a human being (without a clear legal definition of when life begins), then we give the government the power to mandate vaccinations against a virus that has a survival rate of over 99%, without any new law being established. Today vaccinations, tomorrow microchip by executive order.

To have a free society, government needs to be limited. I believe that without a clear and legal definition of when life begins, the government should be limited in what kind of control they have over a woman's body.

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree with almost all of your premise. There are already laws that prohibit the killing of others. Whether another human being "counts" as a life worthy of protecting doesn't need additional laws to define. Some people think humans with Down syndrome, or certain races, have no value and should be extinguished……and those people are psychopaths…just like those who think unborn human beings aren't "life" and can be killed on a whim. Someone's s opinion about whether a life is worthy of protection shouldn't come into play. It allows for evil, which is what our society has embraced in favor of personal expediency and convenience.

We don't need a law establishing that a fetus is life. . . science and objective reality do that. If a human fetus was found on Mars, the headline would be "LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS". Everyone knows an unborn human being is life. We just have a barbaric culture that would rather be free to exterminate that life than be inconvenienced with the responsibility of caring for the life they created. Drawing an arbitrary line at the vagina of when that responsibility begins and when something is "life" is beyond ludicrous and is merely a thinly veiled excuse to give someone an "out" by allowing them to kill another human being.

Finding a constitutional "right" to kill those lives was an absurdity, and absolutely should be corrected.

---

What does Down Syndrome or race have to do with my argument? No one is sayng to kill other races or people with disablities, we're talking about a women's right over her own body.

And life on Mars?

I think you really went off the rails or didn't understand my argument regarding the government's right over someone's body.

---

You are valuing one body over another.

I understand your argument perfectly, I just don't believe it holds water. Just because someone thinks or wishes a life didn't "count", doesn't make it so. Hitler's opinion on Jews didn't mean their lives had no value, and the Left's opinion on fetuses don't either. The question of whether something is "life" has nothing to do with people's opinions or wishes. it's an objective fact that an unborn human being is "life." Extinguishing that life merely because you wish it hadn't come into existence should not be an option. Especially when you were the one responsible for it being created.

Our society has used this ridiculous mantra of "it's my body . . don't tell me what I can and can't do" to justify the killing of other human beings. The reality is that we have valued convenience for one human over the actual LIFE of another human. If you're so worried about body autonomy, maybe worry about the body that's getting crushed and stabbed to death in this scenario.

---

If you want to end abortion, you should lobby for a law that states life begins at conception.

---

Seems silly. Is there a law that states that life ends at death?

---

End of life can be tricky. Brain dead but organs still function

---

But not for long. I think the liver can function for up to 24 hours. I'd have to double check that.

Rawhide said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

The Holocaust was preceded by the "mercy" killing of "defective" newborns (Downs syndrome and physical handicaps) and directly involved doctors and the German medical establishment. It was then expanded to the institutions for handicapped people and mental patients. A number of those same doctors (some who had international reputations in the medical field) in the mercy killing program ended up working in or alongside the death camps. They were not viewed as evil or monsters until after the war. That is why he is connecting the two. Nazi Doctors by Robert Lifton covers this angle.

A philosophy professor at Baylor once told the class I was in that it was perfectly fine for us to argue for abortion in the class discussion, but we could not argue that the unborn child is not a human life: that is an unscientific position. You can argue that it does not deserve the same protections as other human life; but it's factually wrong to say it is not human life.
What is the difference in ending the life of baby right after it is born or in the womb because it has Downs syndrome?

The events of the 1930's and 1940's shows why you don't want to get doctors involved in killing human life. It's a bad road to go down.

---

So where does human life begin? At conception? At a heart beat? After X number of weeks? There are people that would argue that people who say a fetus is human life is an scientific positiont - hence the raging debate for the last several decades.

Did you know that about (or more than) 2/3 of women in this country get abortions when prenatal testing indicates the child will have down syndrome? - perhaps there should a clear legal definition that life begins at conception. It would be easier to make such abortions illegal.

---

Fetus is a Latin word meaning offspring or the bearing of the young. In other words, it's just a substitute word for infant. It's like using the Spanish word casa for a home, and saying since it is a casa it therefore isn't a home.

So when does a fetus become a fetus? At conception a being with its own independent genetic structure is created. If this is not a human life, then what is it? If you say it is not a life, then the burden is on you to say what it is. We come out of nothing, which means a human life is created at some point. If that creation does not occur at conception, then when is human life created?
Calling an unborn infant a collection of cells is a meaningless argument. You and I are also a collection of cells, and decisions were made in the previous century about which clumps of cells had value and which clumps of cells didn't. Collections of cells that were Jewish didn't make the cut in one spectacular case.
Saying it is not an infant because it depends on nutrients from the mother's body is not an argument, unless you are willing to place a born baby on the same level as an unborn infant as not being human, since his survival also depends on nutrients from the mother's body.

I am very aware that there has been a mass killing off of Down's syndrome babies. I used to have a few friends with Down's syndrome when I was I was a kid and a teenager. Used to walk home from school daily with one in my 5th grade class. My children have not had a single kid with Down's syndrome as a friend. They're almost all gone.