PDA

View Full Version : Judge blocks public high school graduation in church



mrveggieman
05-26-2011, 09:37 AM
Hey guys what's your spin on this?

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith/2010/06/judge_blocks_public_school_gra.html

Star_Cards
05-26-2011, 10:03 AM
I don't see why they couldn't have the graduation there. It's just a venue. As long as the church wasn't going to have someone get up before, during, or after the graduation and sell people on their church or religion, I don't see an issue to having it there.

mrveggieman
05-26-2011, 10:20 AM
I don't have a problem with it either but would anyone have a problem with it if the graduation were to be held in a mosque instead of a church?

Star_Cards
05-26-2011, 10:35 AM
good question. I'd guess that some would.

*censored*
05-26-2011, 10:36 AM
I don't see why they couldn't have the graduation there. It's just a venue. As long as the church wasn't going to have someone get up before, during, or after the graduation and sell people on their church or religion, I don't see an issue to having it there.

Agreed. It's just a building. The point of graduation is the ceremony itself, not where it's held. If there's nothing religious about the ceremony, there should be no one taking offense. Frankly, I'd be more offended by a graduation ceremony held on a football field that features a Christian prayer to start it off (oh wait, I saw that at a public school in Texas) than a non-religious graduation ceremony held in a church.

ensbergcollector
05-26-2011, 11:20 AM
I don't see the problem. Obviously, the size of the church makes it a good choice for the ceremony. the facilities are probably nicer than anything the school has. I do however understand on a basic level why this was not allowed. My issue is with the stance of the judge. Did you read her comments?
"Enfield schools sends the message...that it favors the religious over the irreligious and that it prefers Christians over those that subscribe to other faiths, or no faith at all"

really? having a ceremony at a church says that you prefer christians to non? Thus my problem with judges. They get to make unilateral decisions based on whatever they feel like.

habsheaven
05-26-2011, 11:44 AM
Perhaps the judge made her decision and subsequent comments based on ALL the FACTS of the case? Just a thought.

ensbergcollector
05-26-2011, 11:48 AM
Perhaps the judge made her decision and subsequent comments based on ALL the FACTS of the case? Just a thought.

it is a possibility, but based on the way judges normally decide things, i doubt it. The truth of the matter is, many of these judges only get moved up in position when someone appoints them. In order to make a name for themselves, they have to make controversial or shocking judgements.

habsheaven
05-26-2011, 12:06 PM
it is a possibility, but based on the way judges normally decide things, i doubt it. The truth of the matter is, many of these judges only get moved up in position when someone appoints them. In order to make a name for themselves, they have to make controversial or shocking judgements.

That's a pretty cynical view to have but I guess you are entitled to it and granted there are times that that appears to be the case.

ensbergcollector
05-26-2011, 12:11 PM
That's a pretty cynical view to have but I guess you are entitled to it and granted there are times that that appears to be the case.

i admit it is cynical. However, follow any major judge appointment and what is the main thing talked about? their high profile cases. Those cases which distinguish them as liberal or conservative.

mrveggieman
05-26-2011, 12:50 PM
i admit it is cynical. However, follow any major judge appointment and what is the main thing talked about? their high profile cases. Those cases which distinguish them as liberal or conservative.


So are you suggesting that this ruling was politically motivated? Oh no I can't believe that. :sign0020:

gatorboymike
05-26-2011, 04:46 PM
He's saying that the judge, simply by virtue of being a judge, necessarily and automatically could never, ever, ever possibly have given the tiniest fraction of a sliver of a care about the law, and was motivated solely and singularly by the idea that "If I make enough people mad, I'll look proactive and high-minded, and get promoted to a higher court, mwahahaha!"

The only reason people are getting tired of hearing the phrase "separation of church and state" over and over in cases like this is because they're doing their best to establish combination of church and state.

duane1969
05-26-2011, 08:15 PM
Well it isn't like ensbergcollector is off base here. Every single judge that has been appointed to the Supreme Court has previously been in the spotlight for a controversial decision they made(except Kennedy). Whether it be a conservative or a liberal ruling there is no doubt that the limelight shined on them the brightest when the controversy was at it's peak.

Look at the current SC judges...

*Roberts - controversy over military tribunal trials and not protecting an endangered toad
*Scalia - involved in Watergate
*Thomas - during an appointment to be a Federal judge he essentially accused Democrats of being sanctimonious about racism.
*Ginsberg - involved with ACLU in the 70's and was their legal representative for 7 years
*Breyer - involved in Watergate
*Alito - drew attention to himself challenging Warren court rulings
*Sotomayor - involved in court rulings that fined the NYC mayoral campaigns of Giuliani and Dinkins which earned her a Federal judge position where she ruled in high profile cases including the MLB collective bargaining agreement.
*Kagan - made a name for herself when she was a legal aide to Clinton and she grouped the NRA and KKK into the same category

See?!! Controvery = Appointment to a higher court.