Up in north Florida a principal and an athletic director were at a dinner in their honor. They said grace over the dinner. There were no students in the room. It was all adults. Yes it was a school. After hours. Now they're in trouble. Thing is the first amendment says what government can't do not what the populace can't.

Better be careful next time someone sneezes.

Good.

[Blue]

Up in north Florida a principal and an athletic director were at a dinner in their honor. They said grace over the dinner. There were no students in the room. It was all adults. Yes it was a school. After hours. Now they're in trouble. Thing is the first amendment says what government can't do not what the populace can't.

Better be careful next time someone sneezes.

Where in North Florida?

[Mike Cash]

We thank you, Lord, for this food
We know you are the Giver.
But we thank you most of all
That we ain't having liver.

Amen

[slomojoe]

Everyone, regardless of who their employer is, is free to say grace to themselves before a common meal, pray privately and so on. In schools, communal prayers by students are also allowed, as long as the school does not officially endorse them or teachers and administrators, in their position of power and influence, lead them. Regardless of what your religious belief is, that should sound eminently reasonable. If it doesn't, imagine sending your kids to a public school in which fundamentalist muslims, or Hare Krishnas, or whatever, form the vast majority of faculty and students, without such protections.

But the story in Florida apparently is a bit more complicated than the OP suggests. These two individuals are actually currently charged with criminal contempt, because they had a history of violating the first amendment by public religious endorsement and proselytizing in their school, and were under a legal injunction not to do it anymore. Sorry, but they seem to well deserve what is coming to them.

[Blue]

We have HBCU's that do the same thing but I guess the ACLU is busy in Pensacola.

However, the ACLU better pool its resources and go after the biggest threat to the bill of rights to come down the pike since "W" & "D".


Obama's cookies may not go down so easy

The White House Office of Management and Budget has proposed major changes on how Federal sites use cookies. Depending on your point of view, it's either a troubling reversal of policies protecting consumer privacy or a welcome step into modern Web technology.
[ Also on InfoWorld: "Does Obama want to tap your computer?" and "The Obama plan to own your PC, part deux" | Stay up to date on Robert X. Cringely's musings and observations with InfoWorld's Notes from the Underground newsletter. ]
The OMB wants to use three kinds of cookies: single-session cookies that don't maintain tracking data; multisession cookies that gather anonymous data for use in Web analytics; and multisession cookies "for use as persistent identifiers, which track users over multiple visits with the intent of remembering data, settings, or preferences unique to that visitor for purposes beyond what is needed for web analytics."
It's that last category of cookie that isn't going down so well with folks at the ACLU, which released a blistering attack on the proposed changes. Per Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
Without explaining this reversal of policy, the OMB is seeking to allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government web site. Until the OMB answers the multitude of questions surrounding this policy shift, we will continue to raise our strenuous objections.

Read more: Obama's cookies may not go down so easy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002...=moreheadlines

Supporters of a change say social networking and similar services, which often take advantage of the tracking technologies, have transformed how people communicate over the Internet, and Obama's aides say those services can make government more transparent and increase public involvement.
Some privacy groups say the proposal amounts to a "massive" and unexplained shift in government policy. In a statement Monday, American Civil Liberties Union spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball said the move could "allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website.". . .

More like make citizens more transparent! This is straight out of the movie "Running Man."

The new White House Web site privacy policy promises that the site will not use long-term tracking cookies, complying with a decade-old rule prohibiting such user tracking by federal agencies. However, the privacy policy then reveals that Obama's legal team has exempted YouTube from this rule (YouTube videos are embedded at various places around the White House Web site).
While the White House might not be tracking visitors, the Google-owned video sharing site is free to use persistent cookies to track the browsing behavior of millions of visitors to Obama's home in cyberspace.

This is interesting regardless of the above:

Think you deleted your cookies? Think again - CNN.com

The ACLU needs to get busy!

[séamuis]

This is interesting regardless of the above:

Think you deleted your cookies? Think again - CNN.com

The ACLU needs to get busy!

Thank you Firefox and NoScript.

Everyone, regardless of who their employer is, is free to say grace to themselves before a common meal, pray privately and so on. In schools, communal prayers by students are also allowed, as long as the school does not officially endorse them or teachers and administrators, in their position of power and influence, lead them. Regardless of what your religious belief is, that should sound eminently reasonable. If it doesn't, imagine sending your kids to a public school in which fundamentalist muslims, or Hare Krishnas, or whatever, form the vast majority of faculty and students, without such protections.

But the story in Florida apparently is a bit more complicated than the OP suggests. These two individuals are actually currently charged with criminal contempt, because they had a history of violating the first amendment by public religious endorsement and proselytizing in their school, and were under a legal injunction not to do it anymore. Sorry, but they seem to well deserve what is coming to them.

Bull. There were no students around. This was for adults. It was a generic blessing. The first amendment says:

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.

It says what government can't do not what the people can't. The liberal supreme court has adulterated this to the extreme. Government is prohibiting the free exercise. The supreme liberal court should be charged.

[slomojoe]

Bull. There were no students around. This was for adults. It was a generic blessing.

That's not what the court-issued criminal contempt order says:

It appears this was a school-sponsored event attended by students, faculty, and community members.

Regardless, although I don't know anything about the story, it seems from the tone of the order that this proceeding, initiated directly by the court, comes from a judge whose patience with the defendants had already worn thin. The original injunction prevented them from promoting or endorsing religion at school-sponsored events, regardless of students attendance, and they clearly violated that rather straightforward order.

The first amendment says:

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.

Right. For a government employee in his/her official capacity to lead a prayer is clearly a violation of the establishment clause. As individuals, government employees of course have all their individual rights, as representative of the government, they don't. Ironically, it was religious minorities, and especially the Baptists, who originally insisted for the establishment clause to be inserted in the first amendment.

It says what government can't do not what the people can't. The liberal supreme court has adulterated this to the extreme. Government is prohibiting the free exercise. The supreme liberal court should be charged.

Nonsense. The establishment clause has been supported by progressive and conservative courts alike. It's just a rational approach to potentially very contentious issues.

Try putting yourself in other people's shoes for once and you will get it immediately. I am sure you'd strongly object if a scientologist teacher ever tried to proselytize to your son, under the guise of exercising his religious freedom.

[Ratmagiclady]

Yeah, I'm sure this guy has been a stalwart champion of freedom of religion for *all,* and it's clearly some North Florida commie conspiracy that caused him to be cited for contempt when he thumbed his nose at a court order.

These types are trying to martyr themselves one minute, the next having old-fashioned book-burnings when someone *else* says something they don't like, in those public schools they keep trying to de-fund....

That's not what the court-issued criminal contempt order says:Regardless, although I don't know anything about the story, it seems from the tone of the order that this proceeding, initiated directly by the court, comes from a judge whose patience with the defendants had already worn thin. The original injunction prevented them from promoting or endorsing religion at school-sponsored events, regardless of students attendance, and they clearly violated that rather straightforward order. Right. For a government employee in his/her official capacity to lead a prayer is clearly a violation of the establishment clause. As individuals, government employees of course have all their individual rights, as representative of the government, they don't. Ironically, it was religious minorities, and especially the Baptists, who originally insisted for the establishment clause to be inserted in the first amendment.
Nonsense. The establishment clause has been supported by progressive and conservative courts alike. It's just a rational approach to potentially very contentious issues.

Try putting yourself in other people's shoes for once and you will get it immediately. I am sure you'd strongly object if a scientologist teacher ever tried to proselytize to your son, under the guise of exercising his religious freedom.

If he was a muslim nothing would have happened. Freedom of religion. Unless you're Christian.
When was the supreme court ever progressive or conservative? Long as I can remember it's always leaned leftist.

[deadwolfbones]

If he was a muslim nothing would have happened. Freedom of religion. Unless you're Christian.

Hilarious!

[Jasvox]

Sounds to me like the state of Florida school board has it's head way up in it's own ass. If I lived there, I would make my protests be known to them, nobody else...unless we can blame the forefathers of the country for including such ill-thought foundations on which to base a country.

(Maybe Palin or Jeb would be a good person to call and help spearhead this initiative?)

Jason

[slomojoe]

If he was a muslim nothing would have happened. Freedom of religion. Unless you're Christian.

More nonsense. Read this (oblivious to the irony, O'Reilly and religious conservatives nationwide looooved this first amendment suit!). And that teacher was of course right on the merit: Creationism is superstitious religious nonsense, but saying so in a school as a teacher violated the first amendment. He should have said it is scientific nonsense, and left it at that.

When was the supreme court ever progressive or conservative? Long as I can remember it's always leaned leftist.

LOL. We currently have a conservative majority in the USSC: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy. Unless by "conservative" you mean Rush/Beck-crazy wingnut, in which case thankfully Kennedy and possibly Roberts don't go that far.

More nonsense. Read this (oblivious to the irony, O'Reilly and religious conservatives nationwide looooved this first amendment suit!). And that teacher was of course right on the merit: Creationism is superstitious religious nonsense, but saying so in a school as a teacher violated the first amendment. He should have said it is scientific nonsense, and left it at that. LOL. We currently have a conservative majority in the USSC: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy. Unless by "conservative" you mean Rush/Beck-crazy wingnut, in which case thankfully Kennedy and possibly Roberts don't go that far.

And evolution is fact? Look around my friend and if you actually look and observe you will see that evolution is impossible. Both from a scientific standpoint and a natural one.

Again, it's freedom OF not freedom FROM.