tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2891670707436705527.post727830397101222304..comments2023-06-07T12:59:29.543-05:00Comments on Curmudgeon Central: A Diction Question: Is Calling a High School Principal an Idiot Redundant?manjushri924http://www.blogger.com/profile/16996113208352431863noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2891670707436705527.post-49664696262605098152011-05-23T08:18:44.458-05:002011-05-23T08:18:44.458-05:00Jack--
What strikes me as interesting about the c...Jack--<br /><br />What strikes me as interesting about the consultation of the lawyers is that it apparently wasn't done years earlier: surely the school officials recognized the grey area years ago--it's not like these cases are obscure. This goes back to a point I make often: we can complain all we want about this or that person or group getting too much influence, but the fact is, the rest of us let them get away with it.<br /><br />I see no way to construe what happened in Bastrop as a "spontaneous hijacked prayer with no school input." It wasn't spontaneous, clearly, and the school either covertly encouraged it or at the very least did nothing to stop it. If everyone in town is talking about it, and it happens in the rehearsal, it can't come as a surprise when it happens at the event itself. The only questions are whether the collusion of the school administrators was active or passive, and whether the students who "hijacked" the proceedings knew in advance that their little fit of petulance--surely little different from Damon Fowler's--would go unchecked.<br /><br />I'm not arguing that Fowler isn't a pain in the ass. But, even apart from his being in a strong position legally, he has the excuse of being an adolescent. The principal and superintendent, however, need to act like grown-ups. I see no evidence that they have done so.<br /><br />Finally, even if what we have is "bad law," the fact remains that it <i>is</i> the law. And someone <i>did</i> complain. So it's the responsibility of the school officials to enforce that law, not to tacitly (at least) approve of a circumvention of it, however technically legal that circumvention might be.<br /><br />Aquaria: You are free, even encouraged, to state your case with as much fervor as you choose. And I agree with much of the substance of what you say. But personal attacks against other commenters (or against me) will not be tolerated.manjushri924https://www.blogger.com/profile/16996113208352431863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2891670707436705527.post-8909969642466441812011-05-23T06:50:00.866-05:002011-05-23T06:50:00.866-05:00The fact that the lawyers caved prove nothing one ...<i> The fact that the lawyers caved prove nothing one way or the other. </i><br /><br />It proves that they thought that the school might get sued successfully for being fucking bigoted morons.<br /><br /><i>2) A spontaneous hijacked prayer with no school input is definitely not a First Amendment violation.</i><br /><br />There is school input: Deciding not to stop the vomit is implicitly supporting it, which is in violation of SFISD v Jane Doe<br /><br /><i>3) The whole mess proves my point about Damon's actions. As was predictable, they just sparked unhappiness and conflict</i><br /><br />So did Rosa Parks when she refused to get up from that seat a white bigot wanted. She was right to stand up against a law of hate, and Damon Fowler was right to stand up against a policy and CULTURE of hate.<br /><br /><i>) I have always believed this whole line of cases are unnecessary, and made bad law.</i><br /><br />Let's make being a stupid, bigoted white male who is criminally blind to his stupidity illegal, and see how you feel about whether or not that's a "bad" law.<br /><br /><i>I put Damon in the same class with the people who sue to stop nativity scenes. </i><br /><br />People can have all the displays of their lame-brained fantasy on their own damned yards all they want.<br /><br />But those idiotic displays have no business on property that belongs to WE THE FUCKING PEOPLE, which is ALL of us who pay taxes, not just YOU THE STUPID BIGOTED RELIGIOUS BOOT-LICKERS.<br /><br />Do keep up, dillweed.Aquariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07578444793424041263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2891670707436705527.post-86470614468103560922011-05-23T06:44:45.042-05:002011-05-23T06:44:45.042-05:00Santa Fe ISD v Jane Doe says student-led prayers a...Santa Fe ISD v Jane Doe says student-led prayers are not allowed.<br /><br />The Bastrop case meets all of the criteria for being unconstitutional, as per SFISD v Jane Doe, which states that prayers are not allowed "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer".<br /><br />Was that vomitouts prayer spewed:<br /><br />on school property? Yes<br /><br />at a school-sponsored event? Yes<br /><br />over the school's public address system? Yes.<br /><br />by a speaker representing the student body? Yes<br /><br />under the supervision of school faculty? Yes.<br /><br />pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer?<br /><br />That the prayer was a regular spew of stupid at graduations was apparent when Fowler asked for it not to be done indicates that the school had a policy of IMPLICITLY ENCOURAGING the brainwashing of one cult's stupid onto anybody unlucky enough to encounter these scumbags.<br /><br />When the bigoted school officials did nothing to stop not one, but two, displays of religious bigotry by sliming everyone with Christard ignorance and hate, they were exhibiting a policy of IMPLICITLY ENCOURAGING Christard stupidity.<br /><br />Sorry, but the ACLU is going to wipe the floor up with these scumbags.Aquariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07578444793424041263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2891670707436705527.post-16691777482526105302011-05-22T23:23:25.485-05:002011-05-22T23:23:25.485-05:00A couple things:
1) The fact that the lawyers cav...A couple things:<br /><br />1) The fact that the lawyers caved prove nothing one way or the other. The lawyers undoubtedly said, "Yes, it's a bit of a gray area, and we could win and we could lose, but it will cost a lot of money either way, and its a crap shoot---why risk it? That's why threats from a solitary parent objecting to, say,unholy magic in "Into the Woods" can get a musical nixed. Schools are risk averse, and lawyers will assess risk.<br /><br />2) A spontaneous hijacked prayer with no school input is definitely not a First Amendment violation.<br /><br />3) The whole mess proves my point about Damon's actions. As was predictable, they just sparked unhappiness and conflict...all so his shell-like ears wouldn't be offended by a little prayer. What a waste.<br /><br />4) I have always believed this whole line of cases are unnecessary, and made bad law. It's a stretch to say having a prayer at a ceremony is a state attempt to establish a religion.<br /><br />5) I put Damon in the same class with the people who sue to stop nativity scenes. As if a manger and a cow hurts anyone...yeah, it's technically a violation, but if nobody objects, it makes people happy. You have to be a real jerk to want to stop something like a Nativity scene. Damon will be doing this when he's about 30. Mark my words.Jack marshallhttp://www.ethicsalarms.comnoreply@blogger.com