President Bush Booed At Baseball Game

[Tock]

Beating the system? He's [Rush Limbaugh] got the highest rated show on radio. There isnt any system to beat...

And dont claim that he spews hate unless youve actually listened. Because if you did you would realize he doesnt do that at all.....

Adolph Hitler was the "highest rated" German politician in the 1930's.

Popularity doesn't mean anything . . .

Matthew 7:13 -- for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

[Tock]

#1 Prayer in school etc.

So . . . are you saying that public schools should be allowed to require their students to pray?


================================
Here's the landmark US Supreme Court ruling on the Abington Township School District v. Schempp case . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abingto...ict_v._Schempp

Abington Township School District v. Schempp (consolidated with Murray v. Curlett), 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case argued on February 27–28, 1963 and decided on June 17, 1963. In the case, the Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional. The case was part of a string of Supreme Court cases ruling on the place of religion in public schools, and was both condemned by religious conservatives and celebrated by those who supported constitutional separation of church and state.

Origin of case
The Abington case begun when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian and a resident of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, filed suit against the Abington School District in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prohibit the enforcement of a Pennsylvania state law that required his children, specifically Ellory Schempp, to hear and sometimes read portions of the Bible as part of their public school education. That law (24 Pa. Stat. 15-1516, as amended, Pub. Law 1928) required that "[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day." Schempp specifically contended that the statute violated his and his family's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

When it was brought, this case illustrated for Americans the metamorphosis their society was undergoing. Although many must have disagreed with local school districts conducting organized prayers and Bible readings, only a small minority vocally expressed objection to the statutes mandating those activities. Most U.S. citizens believed that the United States was a nation founded on Christian principles. Yet, in spite of their widely held beliefs, as early as 1890, many states were rolling back mandates of state sponsored devotional exercises in the classroom (Boston, 1993, p. 105).

Like four other states, Pennsylvania law included a statute compelling school districts to perform Bible readings in the mornings before class. Twenty-five states had laws allowing "optional" Bible reading, with the remainder having no laws supporting or rejecting Bible reading. In eleven of those states with laws supportive of Bible reading or state-sponsored prayer, courts had declared them unconstitutional (Boston, 1993, p. 101).
More famous than Schempp was the plaintiff in Murray v. Curlett, the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who founded the group American Atheists in 1963.



The district court arguments

During the first District Court trial, Edward Schempp and his children testified as to specific religious doctrines purveyed by a literal reading of the Bible "which were contrary to the religious beliefs which they held and to their familial teaching" (177 F. Supp. 398, 400). The children testified that all of the doctrines to which they referred were read to them at various times as part of the exercises. Edward Schempp testified at the second trial that he had considered having his children excused from attendance at the exercises but decided against it for several reasons, including his belief that the children's relationships with their teachers and classmates would be adversely affected.



The district court ruling

The district court ruled in Schempp's favor, and struck down the Pennsylvania statute. The school district appealed the ruling, and while that appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania legislature amended the statute to allow children to be excused from the exercises upon the written request of their parents. This change did not satisfy Schempp, however, and he continued his action against the school district, charging that the amendment of the law did not change its nature as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. (Due to the change in the law, the Supreme Court had responded to the school district's appeal by vacating the first ruling and remanding the case back to the district court.) The district court again found for Schempp. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court again, and, on appeal, the case was consolidated with a similar Maryland case launched by Madalyn Murray (Boston, 1993, p. 106).

The district court ruling in the second trial, in striking down the practices and the statute requiring them, made specific findings of fact that the children's attendance at Abington Senior High School was compulsory and that the practice of reading 10 verses from the Bible was also compelled by law. It also found that:

The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the Lord's Prayer. The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony for . . . Section 1516 . . . unequivocally requires the exercises to be held every school day in every school in the Commonwealth. The exercises are held in the school buildings and perforce are conducted by and under the authority of the local school authorities and during school sessions. Since the statute requires the reading of the 'Holy Bible,' a Christian document, the practice . . . prefers the Christian religion. The record demonstrates that it was the intention of . . . the Commonwealth . . . to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth. (201 F. Supp., at 819; quoted in 374 U.S. 203 (1963))

Opinions

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to settle the persistent and vigorous protests resulting from its previous decision in Engel v. Vitale regarding religion in schools (White & Zimmerman, p. 70).



The decision

Clark continued that the Court was of the feeling that no matter the religious nature of the citizenry, the government at all levels, as required by the Constitution, must remain neutral in matters of religion "while protecting all, prefer[ring] none, and disparag[ing] none". The Court had clearly rejected the contention by many that the Establishment Clause forbade only governmental preference of one faith over another (Eastland, 1993, p. 59).

Citing Justice Hugo Black in Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Clark added, "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion'". Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs". Such prohibited behavior was that self-evident in the Pennsylvania law requiring Bible reading (and allowing recitation of the Lord's Prayer) in its public schools. The Court recognized the value of such ideal neutrality from lessons of history when government and religion were either fully fused or cooperative with one another and religious liberty was nonexistent or seriously curtailed.

[Tock]

In Mass they have healthcare for everyone and guess what? It takes over a year if you want to just get a physical.

My little brother lives in Mass, and he doesn't have to wait a year to get a physical.

Plus, he tells me that Mitt Romney pushed for and signed the "healthcare for everyone" law. He's not much of a liberal . . . or is he?

[SECdominance]

dont see how allowing prayer could hurt?. not tryin to push my religion on others but let's get real..Wouldnt this nation be a much safer and morally correct place if more people had Christian priniciples? not sayin they would have to be a Christian ..but if they behaved like one should...All of this gang-related violence and thugs takin innocent lives...Apparently ITS COOL to be like Scarface...Sorry for the hijack in advance....but saw the prayer comment and threw in my 2 cents

[Tock]

dont see how allowing prayer could hurt?. not tryin to push my religion on others but let's get real..

Prayer is allowed. Kids can pray pretty much anytime they want. Before meals, before tests, in study hall, on the play ground. They can even form Bible clubs (like Chess Clubs) to meet after school.
What more do they want? Government-paid preachers to lead 'em in prayer?

Wouldnt this nation be a much safer and morally correct place if more people had Christian priniciples?

Not really.
Christians base their principles on the Bible. And the Bible requires that Witches and gays and adulterers and blasphemers be executed. (No kidding)

not sayin they would have to be a Christian ..but if they behaved like one should...All of this gang-related violence and thugs takin innocent lives...Apparently ITS COOL to be like Scarface...

Ya, that's no good either.
Seems to me that the best solution would be for the parents to grow up and make the kids behave. I doubt that will happen, though. So, maybe the practical thing to do would be to take all the problem kids and roast them, and serve them to homeless people for Thanksgiving.

Sorry for the hijack in advance....but saw the prayer comment and threw in my 2 cents

That's what this thread is here for . . .

[RA]

"So, the US Constitution is meant to keep both the secular government out of the church's business, AND to keep the church out of the secular government's business. "


I dont see where youve proven that tock..

[kfrost06]

Prayer is allowed. Kids can pray pretty much anytime they want. Before meals, before tests, in study hall, on the play ground. They can even form Bible clubs (like Chess Clubs) to meet after school.

It's only allowed if it's done in complete silence(for now) soon the government will try to block you from silent prayer too.

Christians base their principles on the Bible. And the Bible requires that Witches and gays and adulterers and blasphemers be executed. (No kidding)

That's just an out right lie to help you demonize the Bible.

Ya, that's no good either.
Seems to me that the best solution would be for the parents to grow up and make the kids behave. I doubt that will happen, though. So, maybe the practical thing to do would be to take all the problem kids and roast them, and serve them to homeless people for Thanksgiving.

Thats just absurd, what are the vegetarians suppose to eat?

[fdrx7man]

So your saying we shouldnt show some respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?

Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.

I heart your av!!

[RA]

One person doesnt have a damn thing to do with the other. Stop being a fkn retard.

Adolph Hitler was the "highest rated" German politician in the 1930's.

Popularity doesn't mean anything . . .

Matthew 7:13 -- for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

[RA]

So . . . are you saying that public schools should be allowed to require their students to pray?

Not require, allow.

[SMCengineer]

Most AM, FM, and TV stations are businesses. If the owners of the business can decide to have a controversial fire-brand doing a talk show and espousing radical views on hot topics, then the owners can budget time for opposing views. .

Yes, they can budget time for opposing views, but shouldn't be forced to. Not in a free market society anyway. As you said, they're businesses and as such have a right to choose what they offer. Let the free market decide what people want to listen to. It's certainly the best source.

They can raise their advertising fees however they like to pay for any $$$ they lose; but chances are, they won't lose much, if any at all.
Talk shows run a couple minutes of ads, then a program segment, then some more ads. They could just as easily run an opposing viewpoint between those ads, and the talk show host could use the time to go take a leak.
The ads still run, the station owners get their $$$, the talk show host gets a break, the listeners hear more than one side to an issue, and everybody is happy, except for the folks who don't want the general public to know anything other than what they tell them over the air.
And yes, this applies to both conservative and liberal offenders.

I don't see what the problem is.

I'm gonna spell this out for you. When you threaten litigation for controversial comments, no matter what the circumstance, you silence dissenters and you violate first amendment rights.

"as a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
-Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 885 (1997)

The goverment has no jurisdiction to regulate speech!

It pisses me off that we tend to ignore history and think "it might be better this time around." Sorry, but history does repeat itself.

[tadpoleboyy]

Bush still sucks

[ecto9]

#1 Libs have twisted the separation of church and state to fit their agenda.

Umm, excuse me, but I think the conservatives have been doing that, ie; the religious right. Care to elaborate?

[Mick Jagger]

...the US Constitution is meant to keep both the secular government out of the church's business, AND to keep the church out of the secular government's business.

The Constitution does nothing more than totally exclude religion from the cognizance of the government.

[Tock]

Yes, they can budget time for opposing views, but shouldn't be forced to. Not in a free market society anyway. As you said, they're businesses and as such have a right to choose what they offer. Let the free market decide what people want to listen to. It's certainly the best source.

If the radio airwaves were private property, I'd agree. But, the radio airwaves are considered public property. Broadcasters are licensed to use those airwaves, and the Federal government does indeed affect what can be broadcast over those airwaves, such as in the government's rule regulating a broadcaster's political commentary:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/p...adcasting.html

Political Editorials. A political editorial is when a station endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate(s) during a broadcast of its own opinion. (The opinions of other people broadcast over the station are referred to as "comments" or "commentary"). Whether a statement of opinion is an editorial or a commentary will usually be made clear at the beginning of the statement. Within 24 hours after the editorial, the station must transmit the following three things to the other qualified candidate(s) for the same office, or to the candidate(s) that were opposed: (1) notification of the date and time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond on the air.

Nowadays, a broadcaster can legally use its Federal License to transmit 100% anti-(name your politician or issue) as long as it broadcasts the opinions of other people. Without the FCC Fairness Doctrine, it does not have to broadcast more than one side of the dispute. Anyone (or any corporation) with lots of $$$ could pay a FCC license holder to withhold any side of any controversial issue, and the general public that relied on that broadcaster to properly inform him about the issues of the day would be deliberately misled, by a FCC license holder, on airwaves owned by the public.

So . . . if you find you cannot trust what you see in TV news, or on the radio, or whatever, this is one major reason why.
If a FCC license holder does not like Steroid Users, for instance, the broadcaster is free to broadcast an endless string of opinions from other people saying, "We think steroid users are dangerous people," and "Steroid Users have a much higher rate of child abuse," and "Research shows that Steroid users were working with the Germans in World War 2." Rabidly anti-steroid broadcasters can do this without broadcasting any opposing view from anyone who actually knows what's going on.
And the same situation is true for political candidates, for political issues, for anything.

IMHO, Americans are not well-served by a government that precludes knowledgeable citizens from challenging falsehoods broadcast on their publicly-owned airwaves.

Here's an interesting article about what happened to the "public service" in the FCC's regulation of the airwaves, FYI:
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/ml/r...c_interest.pdf

[Tock]

The goverment has no jurisdiction to regulate speech!

Over the public airwaves, it sure does.

[SMCengineer]

If the radio airwaves were private property, I'd agree. But, the radio airwaves are considered public property. Broadcasters are licensed to use those airwaves, and the Federal government does indeed affect what can be broadcast over those airwaves, such as in the government's rule regulating a broadcaster's political commentary:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/p...adcasting.html

Political Editorials. A political editorial is when a station endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate(s) during a broadcast of its own opinion. (The opinions of other people broadcast over the station are referred to as "comments" or "commentary"). Whether a statement of opinion is an editorial or a commentary will usually be made clear at the beginning of the statement. Within 24 hours after the editorial, the station must transmit the following three things to the other qualified candidate(s) for the same office, or to the candidate(s) that were opposed: (1) notification of the date and time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond on the air..

First off, we need to clear something up. You keep referring to the airwaves as public airwaves, but I'm not sure you know exactly what that means. The airwaves are not public in the sense of a public park or a public sidewalk. Taxpayers don't pay for the airwaves therefore the government (aka the public) does not own them. The airwaves are more akin to a natural resource. It's available to everyone, but you have to have the ability to harness it (ie a radio tower) and to garner listeners. Liberals tried to compete in radio with AIR America, but they failed terribly. The market is still open, but since liberals can't get a hold on talk radio they want to mandate a spot on it. Is that what you call fair? Fairness already exists!

If you continue to consider the airwaves publically owned as in parks and sidewalks, than let me ask you, can the government regulate speech in public parks and on sidewalks?

Now, if you wish to keep calling them public airwaves you'll need to explain how the public came to own them.

Nowadays, a broadcaster can legally use its Federal License to transmit 100% anti-(name your politician or issue) as long as it broadcasts the opinions of other people. Without the FCC Fairness Doctrine, it does not have to broadcast more than one side of the dispute. Anyone (or any corporation) with lots of $$$ could pay a FCC license holder to withhold any side of any controversial issue, and the general public that relied on that broadcaster to properly inform him about the issues of the day would be deliberately misled, by a FCC license holder, on airwaves owned by the public.

Um...you do realize the fairness doctrine was abandoned in 1987 and the FCC no longer has to enforce it, right? The reason it's coming up again is that Democrats in congress want to silence political opposition. If Obama were elected he'd most likely reinstate it.

So . . . if you find you cannot trust what you see in TV news, or on the radio, or whatever, this is one major reason why.

So once the government gets involved again and starts regulating talk shows, TV, and internet than I should trust the content? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Individuals can and should get there news from whatever source they like. If a conservative chooses to listen to a conservative talk show host they shouldn't be forced to listen to liberal rebuttals no matter how fair you think it is. If we forced them to listen to opposing viewpoints it would be a quasi-fascist state. Under the fairness doctrine people would loose their right to listen to hate mongering talk shows. Now, I agree that individuals should get opposing viewpoints, but that's wholeheartedly up to them. If they want to be informed than we have much greater media outlets than just AM talk radio and the liberal media owns most of those outlets.

If a FCC license holder does not like Steroid Users, for instance, the broadcaster is free to broadcast an endless string of opinions from other people saying, "We think steroid users are dangerous people," and "Steroid Users have a much higher rate of child abuse," and "Research shows that Steroid users were working with the Germans in World War 2." Rabidly anti-steroid broadcasters can do this without broadcasting any opposing view from anyone who actually knows what's going on.
And the same situation is true for political candidates, for political issues, for anything.

Bias speech, no matter how hateful, wrong, anti-american, propagandized, anti-religious, pro-religious, pro-war, anti-war, for the troops, against the troops, pro-steroids, against-steroids, etc, etc, is protected from Congress by the Constitution!

IMHO, Americans are not well-served by a government that precludes knowledgeable citizens from challenging falsehoods broadcast on their publicly-owned airwaves.

In a free market, knowledgeable citizens don't have to listen falsehoods broadcast on the radio. They can turn the dial.

Over the public airwaves, it sure does.

The Constitution doesn't give the government power to control what is broadcast. The airwaves are owned by noone.

If you do believe the government has the ability to regulate speech I'd advise you to reasearch the first amendment.:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Mike Dura]

Nobody is entitled to respect. More on the mark to demand that it's earned. On the other hand, if disrespect is earned (e.g., Bush admin. policies), one is entitled to express it if one should choose. Hence, the boos. To be sure, most appropriate.

Hes the president. People should show some respect and not act like children.

[Tock]

The Constitution doesn't give the government power to control what is broadcast. The airwaves are owned by noone.

Well, we will just have to disagree on that point, and several others.

What was this thread originally about, anyway?

[SMCengineer]

^^who knows?