Skip to comments.California High School: We Have a Right to BAN God
Posted on 07/13/2014 11:41:51 AM PDT by PoloSec
A High School in California has insisted that it has a right to ban the mention of God in a students graduation speech paradoxically claiming the Constitution gives them that power.
In July 18-year-old Brooks Hamby refused to follow the schools ban order and thanked Jesus in his speech anyway sending the school into fits of apoplexy.
A California school district says it will not apologize to a teenager who defied its orders and mentioned God in his graduation speech.
Attorneys representing the Brawley Union High School District have written a 10-page letter defending the schools right not only to censor graduation speeches, but also to ban any speech that references God or Jesus.
It is well established in the Ninth Circuit and California that a public school salutatorian has no constitutional right to lead a prayer or include sectarian or proselytizing content in his/her graduation speech, reads a letter from the San Diego law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo.
The Liberty Institute has taken young Mr. Hambys case demanding that the school apologize for attempting to force him to eliminate mentions of God.
It appears that people really should leave California and move to the United States.
they have the right to ban Satan, too. But he/it doesn’t go by our rules.
Not if you’re receiving U.S. taxpayer dollars, Skippy. You have the “right” to do what the hell the taxpayers TELL YOU MAGGOTS to do.
Liberal assault on 1st amendment and free exercise continues.
Christians should not send their children to ungodly schools. These places are Satan’s nurseries, where unbelievers are recruiting future sufferers for Hell.
Prior restraint of speech is a bad thing to these people, unless it’s prior restraint of religious speech. Amazing.
Public entities have no rights at all. They have certain powers granted by constitution and law but none of those powers can abridge individual rights.
Paraphrasing, you can ban G-d, but you cannot ban the consequences of banning G-d.
Do they really have the right to ban mention of God or religion??
Isn’t the farthest they can legally go, be to say that the school district does not endorse any particular faith, is open to those of all faiths, etc. ??? Maybe I missed this law banning God.
But (s)he’d be free to proselytize about homosexuality until the sun goes down...
Brawley Union High School District Superintendent
Dr. Hasmik Danielian firstname.lastname@example.org
You are correct as far as I know.
Students are not the state.
Fools—they cannot ban God from school or anywhere else.
They have zero power over Him but if they miss eternal heaven its because they chose to ban themselves. Morons who think they are so wise-—
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Somebody might BELIEVE and then what?
Perhaps these children and teachers have never read or heard or are willfully choosing to ignore: “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
This is the student’s own beliefs. I don’t know about the 9th circus, but generally elsewhere it has come out that yes, a student may state his religious beliefs when asked for original content.
They aren’t professing to know God, therefore this isn’t the on-point passage.
Many of the founders cited the importance of God and Bible as the keystone to education. We can post a whole thread and share the many quotes to prove it. These modern lowlifes parading as educators have nothing in common with the founders or what the Constitution symbolizes. They are heretics and lying, unworthy,godless tyrants-—chaff in the wind.
Are those the actual words from these pix? What does this come from? A TV show or movie? Thanks.
A couple of years ago I was having new tires mounted in Wal-Mart. One of the mechanics upon seeing my unusual cross (a Canterbury cross)came up to me and said, “Hey man, I like your bling”! I’ve heard many comments about it before but never have I ever heard a cross referred to as “bling”.
Students clearly cannot give prayers at school events like football games but I agree if the school provides a limited open forum for student speech, the school may have to accept almost anything the student wishes to say.
Holy carp—that girl in the pics looks a whole lot like my sister in her younger days. FWIW..
Too many Christians dropped the faith ball... that’s my frank observation here.
Many of the Founders weren’t Christian even though they professed a respect for biblical ethics. They saw the wisdom of scripture and yet were not willing to take that step of yielding their lives to Christ, so they bastardized the scripture. Such people might be friendly to Christians most of the time, but when push comes to shove will fall down in the spiritual battle.
Not impossible these days.
Such awkward encounters might yet be used as opportunities to boast on the Lord. E.g. My bling? It’s not my bling. It’s God’s bling.
WHERE in the Constitution does it state this? We need to ask ourselves why the educational system of this country is in the hands of such horribly ignorant people.
How and why did we allow this to happen?
Think about it...
What about the Islamic prayer room, does that have to go too?
Priceless. You are paraphrasing a devout atheist. Well done.
Maybe your right but we will take the founders words and writings about God and Bible over what this current load of basura cretins in public education foments these days. The founders were far from perfect but they weren’t arrogant dix as to ‘ban’ God or the mention of Him in schools. Quite the opposite.
I bet if this was some Moslem standing up reciting the call to prayer or saying Allah Akbar - all the liberals would have stood up and cheered to celebrate how diverse they are...
Liberals make me sick - the public school system is infested with it...
Here’s an excellent article on the Founders with regard to Christianity:
( I have a book in my personal library which is far more copious.)
Hi again, HiTech! ;-)
Until they find themselves in the middle of an earthquake and we’ll see who they call upon. Buddha? Allah? 0bama????
Christians should not give up the fight for public schools. Its vital for this country.
A Perfect Retort!
The worst part of this is that whoever made that statement is teaching children.
First, note that regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the Establishment Clause and Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation," the real Thomas Jefferson had clarified the following about the religious aspects of the 1st and 10th Amendments. Jefferson had noted that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment in part to clarify that the states had reserved government power to regulate (I say cultivate) religious expression to themselves, regardless that they had also made the 1st Amendment in part to prohibit such power to Congress entirely.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed [emphasis added]; " --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
So given that the states have the power to regulate religion, the same power that enables the states to authorize creationism to be taught in public schools for example, there would have been no question up to the time that the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified that displaying the 10 Commandments in public schools was constitutional. After all, schools used to use the Bible to help students learn to read.
H O W E V E R ...
Note that one of the oldest cold wars still going on in the country is the war between Catholics and Protestants. This is evidenced by the common schools pioneered by Horace Mann that were started in the first half 19th century which promoted Protestant Christian beliefs over Catholic Christian beliefs.
Also consider the 19th century anti-Catholic political cartoons of Thomas Nast.
The cold war between Protestants and Catholics escalated when federal lawmaker James G. Blaine tried to lead Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states to prohibit common schools from teaching sectarian (read Catholic) beliefs.
Although the proposed Blain amendment never made it to the Constitution, former KKK member Justice Hugo Black, one of FDRs activist justices, essentially succeeded in amending the Blaine amendment to the Constitution from the bench. Southern Baptist Justice Black was influential in helping to twist the Establishment Clause to kick Jesus out of the public schools.
Note that Phillip Hamburgers book The Separation of Church and State, a book which examines discrimination against USA Catholics in the 19th century, helps to substantiate these observations.
A major consequence of FDRs unconstitutionally big federal government is the following. FDRs justices essentially had to sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet so that the Court could give the green light to Congress to overstep its Commerce Clause powers which it did in Wickard v. Filburn . In fact, here is what was left of the 10th Amendment after FDRs activist justices decided that case.
In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was necessary and proper to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit [emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as production, manufacturing, and mining were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Using terms like some concept and implicit, FDRs justices essentially turned 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty into a wives tale imo.
With the 10th Amendment politically repealed by judicial fiat, anti-Catholic former KKK member Black rationalized the 10th Amendment power of the states to legislatively address religious issues into obscurity by arguing the following. He argued that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights in its entirety, including the 1st Amendments prohibition of power to regulate religion to Congress to the states. Blacks influence is evidenced by the following excerpt from Cantwell v. Connecticut.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. [emphasis added] The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
H O W E V E R ...
By arguing that 14A took away certain powers from the states, in this case the power to address religious issues which "atheist" Thomas Jefferson had clarified that they had, activist justices wrongly ignored the following. They ignored that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had officially clarified that 14A took away no state's rights.
The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States. John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance. John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
In fact, consider that Justice Reed had noted the following about the 10th and 14th Amendments. Justice Reed had indicated that it is the job of judges to balance 10A protected state powers with 14A protected rights, as opposed to spinning 14A as an excuse to rob the states of such powers.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
So regardless what activist justices and their activist law school professors want everybody to think about 14A, the states still have the 10A power to regulate religion which Jefferson had clarified imo, state power to regulate religion now limited by 14A as opposed to the PC idea that 14A took away such powers.
Again, the problem is that, regardless that Christian parents / guardians are making sure that their children are being taught the Holy Bible, Christians are evidently not making sure that their children are being taught the law of the land as constitutonal lawmakers had intended for it to be understood. Christians are therefore unsurprisingly suffering the consequences of their ignorance of their constitutionally protected religious freedoms by the hands of pagan judges.
Sadly, political loss of constitutionally protected religious freedoms for USA Christians is arguably rooted in the ongoing cold war between Protestants and Catholics.
Actually after reading the excellent linked article on post 32 and from Wall Builders it seems the majority of the founders were quite Christian. I would think proclaiming and reference to Bible scriptures is the stuff of a Christian believer-—we are all flawed and come short of His glory-—founders included.
It happens all the time...but it can be undone by fighting it and demonstrating the LIE that it is...with a much stronger and longer lasting effect on the students. ;-)
One of the things I love the most about Jesus is that He IS the Truth.
Seems to be a ban on water from the skies there in Ca.
King Barry can’t make it rain in case the leftists haven’t noticed by now. Wonder who they can ask for help? Oh they know-—yes, they know who.
Every student’s speech should be “I had a speech written but when the atheistic administration got through censoring it there was nothing but black lines left. So, all I have to say is: Go forth and prosper.”
(The pic is “borrowed” so I’m not real sure of it’s “origin”. Wish I knew!!)
They are a bunch of Edomites.
But being Liberal and all they can’t say the unmentionable word. Maybe they can have a chit-chat with local Indian tribe or something ....
do we have the right to ban fags and liberals?
“In July 18-year-old Brooks Hamby refused to follow the schools ban order and thanked Jesus in his speech anyway sending the school into fits of apoplexy. “
Does not the king of burgers teach us to, “be your way”?
Does tolerance not come with pickles and onions when faith is the issue? /S