Let our Right of Free Expression Drive us to Tighten Our Belts around the Neck of Oppression and Intolerance from the Government.

Why do the American people allow for the Government to freely create laws that exist for the purposes of oppressing those that try and commit to living by the ideals of our Constitution?

I have been asking that same question for 30 years and can't get a straight answer.

polka

now just remember..I agree with you on this...and with religion forcing their views on others...you just have to realize that the left does it too....that the left is trying to take away choice..and the right is trying to take away choice.

what we are left with is diminishing choices for all...and more control over us in government. dress codes and telling what children can and cant do used to be limited as it was more of a catholic thing...but with government taking over our schools it was just a matter of time before all have to conform.

are you seeing this now finally???? EVERYONE conforms.....in freedom....some schools could require it....some wouldnt...as a parent you could decide what school your child went to.

that is why freedom is so important in all aspects of life......government forces compliance through threats of and acts of violence....period.

and again...I know you are coming from the left wing...so its easy for you to see how the right wing does it....I am just saying....take a step back and see how the left does it just the same.

in the end.....WE ARE ALL LOSING.

peace.

http://www.thegrio.com/health/whats-behind-the-sagging-pants-trend.php

The sag was more popular here say 4 or 5 years ago...appears to be on its way out, now....

Vested #5.2

That does not quite explain it. Sag pants are worn by homosexuals in the prison system as a means of advertisement. Pretty soon, the rest of the population figures out it is a good way to annoy the warden, and more start doing it. So, the not-so-bright gangster wanna be's on the outside decide that if they want to be a gangsta they gotta look like a gangsta, and bingo! a fad is born. Next thing you know, white bread suburban boys think it is cool to wear gangsta' pants. No wonder the sag is on its way out.

Polka

I agree freedom is important

I also find it disgusting the way most children and teens are dressed today especially when it comes to going to school

I am fine with kids not wearing uniforms as long as what they wear is clean, fits and does not show any parts of their body not usually for public viewing.

I do not think that children should be going to school with the cracks of their a$$, or their underwear showing, or in their pajamas, or in beach wear

But I guess I am just old fashioned.

I think these children can be perfectly free in a pair of jeans or slacks a clean shirt or blouse and pair shoes

Is that such an oppressive request.

I also admire businesses that require certain decorum in dress for service and support those enterprises.

Also if a person's expression is offensive to others is that not intruding on the freedom of others.

it would seem to me that private schools can regulate clothing if they wish but public schools shouldn't because it is the government and it shouldn't undermine the free expression of the children

You go to school to learn, not be a unique butterfly.

Rhep

think of it this way.

maybe people are trying to be that "unique butterfly" because we are losing freedom of expression in so many other ways???? you see...when people are viewed as a collective they seek ways to show how "individual" they are.

if we viewed ourselves as individuals...then maybe people wouldnt be trying so much to be that unique butterfly.

or it could be just the normal teenage thing rebelling against authority...and if you didnt have so many rules....well then you wouldnt have as much rebelling.

that kind of thoughts were best described by this man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7oMOxPjNE

Are you against rights because of age?

I am aware that our rights have limits, I wouldn't go into a courtroom and start yelling at the jury because I thought it might be fun, there are times the police don't need a warrant to search your stuff, and people can certainly lose the right to vote. As I recall you advocate limits on the 2nd Amendment.

So tell me, what do you find more important... The right of one student to wear whatever they please, no matter how disruptive it is, or the right of an entire class to an education?

I think students have a right to learn while being a unique butterfly. It is the freedom of expression that our government can't oppress.

Again, they can be as unique as they want as long as it isn't disruptive, same reason you will be asked to leave for talking in a movie theater.

Did you happen to read the supreme court case I linked?

ohhhh you mean that same supreme court which ruled it was constitutional to forcibly sterlize women who were not "desireable" for the good of the whole???

The SCOTUS is a joke...and usually just vote the way of the party that put them in there...they have shown no obligation or support of our constitution in the past....

in regards to the dress code rhep...and it being disruptive...if children were forced to go to school naked...it would be disruptive at first...but then over time..not so much.

same with clothes....it might be at first...but as with everything in freedom....the abuse doesnt last long and it evens out on its own...we dont need a government to tell us what is morally right or wrong.

but then I dont believe the government should be involved in the indoctrination of our children anyway. and this is one of the examples on the problems that it causes....education should be the private sector...bring competition back into it.

peace.

per the constitution there is no right

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html

its question 67 on that page.

polka

Expecting a serious debate back and forth I got involved in this thread against my initial judgement.

The reason we have so many dropouts and uneducated graduates of our public schools is that we are so busy letting them express themselves that we forget that they are supposed to be learning.

I just return from a trip downtown to the drug store and the usual crowd of do nothings are expressing themselves lying around the park in the town square. Predictably they seem to be wearing the same (not similar) clothes they were wearing when I got my paper yesterday.

They have expressed themselves out of school, out of a job and in many casesout of their parents homes and onto the street, so I certianly hope they are enjoying their freedom.

I know one thing this expressing themselves is a spin on lack of parental involvement; if one of my kids, grand kids, nieces or nephews came over to our place with the crack of their a$$ they would get an earful and be on their way home.

I was a HR Director for many years and when interviewees arrived dressed unprofessionally, with dirty unkempt hair, a ringing cell phone and an attitude because they were expressing themselves they seldom were hired, because their appearance was accompanied by a lack of ability to function in the business world.

Yes they should enjoy their freedom by all means

Robert

what you are talking about is something entirely different than this article....what you are talking about is something much deeper that is wrong with our society.

freedom is not what is wrong with our society...a lack of it is.

you are just seeing a symptom to a bigger problem here.

i mean why worry abouta job when the government will take care of you??? why worry right?? just party..do whatever you want......and the govermnment will take care of you.

hey but guess what..as with anything the government does......the people get upset...you with this clothes...others with how much something costs...so then the government starts putting in rules.

I had this argument with polka myself in regards to food stamps...I believe.

same argument you are making now with clothes.

and that is what they want so they can control us even more...it happens over and over again.

ohhhh you mean that same supreme court which ruled it was constitutional to forcibly sterlize women who were not "desireable" for the good of the whole???

Which case would that be? Hell, which court would that be?

The SCOTUS is a joke...and usually just vote the way of the party that put them in there...they have shown no obligation or support of our constitution in the past....

/yawn

in regards to the dress code rhep...and it being disruptive...if children were forced to go to school naked...it would be disruptive at first...but then over time..not so much.

So your argument is that nothing is disruptive because if everyone did it then eventually people would accept it?

There should never be a time when people can be searched without a court order or be prevented from voting.

Rights have limits.

Only if the two statements are together as one statement and that would require gun owners to be part of the military.

Except that it doesn't, and you know this.

I don't know if the right to an education exists but the right to free expression does exist.

It is the law that one attends school.

But that would depend on any person's point of view and could lead to strict dress codes like uniforms that would violate the student's free speech/expression rights from the first amendment. There can be no legitimate limits in a nation that values freedoms.

Read.

The.

Case.

I.

Linked.

Any court case like that has no real legitimacy because there is no right to not be offended.

You obviously didn't read it.

What should be done is limiting what is taught so only important fields of study are taught that can educate students.

Which fields are currently required that shouldn't be? Math? Science? English? Phys Ed?

its question 67 on that page.

There is no enumerated right. I believe it would easily fall within the bounds of the 9th.

Yes they should enjoy their freedom by all means

Indeed, we're all free to do what we like, but our actions have consequences.

rhep

thanks for indulging me

supreme court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

so with the evidence above...and this

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/minor-v-happersett

then of course you have bowers v. hardwicks which says gays have no right to engage in sodomy even in private.

so i will say it again. the SCOTUS is a joke....and yes...yawn.

yes my argument is that nothing is disruptive once it becomes "normal"......example would be allowing women the right to vote finally.....not really disruptive now is it????

there is also no enumerated constitutional right to an education....period. and as it says...a state may have it in their constitution...yea you know that whole sovereign state thing....damn.

and again....this is what happens whenever a central government takes control....it costs too much....not good results...so then central government grabs more power...more money.

it happens with food stamps...welfare.....you name it....they start putting regulations and restrictions on behavior.....it happens everytime.

hey but its been a pleasure reading your highly centralized arguments....not really any substance to me when it comes to freedom...more of the status quo...but hey...I needed somethig to get me going this am...thanks.

now back to work for me trying to rid the world of the sheep mentality.

you are an individual...dont forget that. reject that you are incapable of making decisions for yourself....stop living in fear.

peace.

Not in a free nation.

Don't tell the Supreme Court!

Not in a free nation.

Please provide another example of the phrase The People that is used in the context of Government service. I bet you can't.

The case mentioned that the court decided that free expression is tolerable in public schools if it doesn't interfere with the rights of others but free expression doesn't interfere with the rights of others as there is no right to not be offended so their opinion is void of all legality.

Distracting from the purpose of being somewhere does interfere with others.

It would seem that youropinion is devoid of legality, since mine is law. Just sayin'.

Any indoctrinating information like religious concepts in science class.

Oh, so straw-men then. Yea, I never liked scarecrows...

Yes and people must understand that their appearance may lead to consequences from others but it is their right to wear what they want regardless of any consequences.

They can, at which point they will suffer the consequences - like being told to change shirts or be sent home.

But is that law constitutional?

Since many have been in place over 150 years, I would imagine so - unless you're Amish.

thanks for indulging me

That's the whole idea, isn't it?

so with the evidence above

That was a different court. ;) But I wasn't aware of that case, thanks for sharing.

and this

That is a case about women not getting to vote 50 years before the 19th Amendment.

so i will say it again. the SCOTUS is a joke

They don't get to make things up, they can only interpret the law as written.

yes my argument is that nothing is disruptive once it becomes "normal"......example would be allowing women the right to vote finally.....not really disruptive now is it????

Not really the same as being naked in school.

Your argument is also flawed because if it were required then it would be, by definition, normal.

there is also no enumerated constitutional right to an education

I recall referencing the 9th Amendment.........

Then again, regulation of schools is left to the states, so i suppose it falls under the 10th.

Which doesn't really conflict with the idea that dress codes can be established.

you are an individual...dont forget that. reject that you are incapable of making decisions for yourself....stop living in fear.

Don't recall saying I'm not or that I'm afraid of anything. I have said that regulation of dress in schools is generally constitutional.

#6.13 People need to understand that their appearance may cost them a chance to be employed. There is no violation if employers desire certain dress standards.

People also need to understand a business has a right to refuse service to a customer if that customer does not meet certain dress standards. There is no violation if vendors desire a certain dress standard.

There is the "right to refuse service" and there is the "right to patronize your restaurant". That dress code in particular is for sanitary reasons. :o)

Polka

Just so I understand

If my grandson (who attends school in Florida) wants to wear flip flops and a bathing suit to the public school he attends, he constitutional protection to do it.

Is that what you are telling me?

damn polka

you are just getting smarter by the day......just some more fine tuning and you will be all about freedom and individual rights.

Polka

Thanks and if they made a determination that wearing such an outfit (swimming trunks and flip flops) was either unsafe or unsanitary, would they then be able to restrict what the children wear?

how would that be unsafe?? should wearing steel toed shoes be mandatory?? that would be the safest?? wait...all steel shoes would be the safest.....lets mandate those.

you can always find something that is going to be "unsafe" it doesnt mean becuase something could happen that you take away the rights of all to protect peopple from themselves.

I'm a libertarian and I agree with you but I know that in Florida your grandson is going to have a big problem with swimming trunks and flip flops in school. I agree that children should be allow self expression to better develop their creativity potential (according to some theories), but many people here will disagree with me. I know of one private school that will allow that.

In restaurants, I would not like to eat while watching the crack of a teenager sitting in front of me. But that's me, someone else could enjoy that. :o)

but it should be up to the parents.

if parents want to let their daughter go out in a thong bikini...hey more power to them.

people are crazy to think that with freedom it would be total chaos.

Hey, I'm a naturist, for all I care they could go naked, but we will have trouble selling that in the good old USA. Hell, Ron Paul has a hard time selling more conventional wisdom..

I have interpreted that amendment as a reference to military service. If the framers had not intended that to be interpreted that way then they wouldn't have included the first part of the statement.

If they had intended it to be part of the government, they would have put it into the Constitution itself and left out the phrase The People, which only means one thing.

It is not important. There is no right to not be interrupted anywhere in public areas/institutions. The Supreme Court is corrupt and has a long history of ruling against our rights. Ruling against our freedom of expression would simply be one more example

Our rights are not unlimited.

That is acceptable from private groups but never from the government that must never infringe on our rights and that includes our freedom of expression. All dress code laws are inherently unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately.

Based on what?

It conflicts with the first amendment rights of students.

No, it doesn't.

So, did you read the court case I linked yet?

Y'all seem to have the problem of "Well if the SCoTUS doesn't agree with me then they're obviously wrong!"

Do I have the right to utter Fighting Words? Do I have the right to drive my car on the left side of the road? Do I even have a right to drive?

Our rights can only be legally infringed if they infringe on the rights of another person.

So you support the rights of companies to refuse service or employment based on race, gender, or sexual orientation?

You support the rights of someone to use Fighting Words?

The first amendment of the Constitution; the supreme law of the US. Every US citizen has the right of free expression.

Your interpretation. Remind me, what schooling do you have as a Constitutional Scholar?

No. They are obviously wrong and corrupt for ruling against the Constitution and not with it.

For the entire history of the nation. Right..

I don't think so. That would go against most state laws I think.

There is nothing in the Constitution against it, so by your reasoning I CAN!

I don't think the framers added driving to the Constitution but I would like to hear a libertarian's point of view on that.

So you've never read the Constitution? Have you read the California constitution?

I support both.

Then what was all that outrage you had over the Superbowl ads that you thought were racist?

But it would probably be illegal by state law and if it isn't a protected right then can it be legally limited by state laws?

What about the 9th Amendment?

For most of its history.

Examples?

Rhep

not speaking for Polka here...but you can support the freedom of a company to be racist....but it doesnt mean you have to like it or condone such idiotic and offensive behavior.

you still speak out about it....I am having this very argument on another article.....just because you say racism should be allowed in business doesnt mean that you condone the behavior.

You may not like her...but Ayn Rand was a genius when it came to racism.

http://alexpeak.com/twr/racism/

besides the first ammendment isnt there so we can talk about the weather...it is there to protect unpopular speech.

you have to protect all actions no matter how horrible the actions are....it does not violate anyones rights to not be served in a place of business........so therefore it is legal and is the owner on his private property excercising his right to be stupid if he so wishes.

I know that Polka does not condone that behavior....going on a limb here.....but she is protecting your right to choice.

not speaking for Polka here...but you can support the freedom of a company to be racist....but it doesnt mean you have to like it or condone such idiotic and offensive behavior.

I know, but Polka has previously said companies should be penalized for racism or sexism.

besides the first ammendment isnt there so we can talk about the weather...it is there to protect unpopular speech.

Sure, doesn't mean you can say anything you want wherever you want.

For example, I supported the decision to let the Phelps douches protest but I have been personally involved in a counter-protest to block them from a funeral.

What about the 10th Amendment?

The one that gives power to the states? What about it? The 9th would be much more fitting here.

There are too many to list them all and you should already know the most famous historical and recent cases like Dred Scott (freed slave case) and Citizens United.

Talk about a cop-out! "There are too many to list them all, so I will list one, sorta."

Good one.

So...you believe in the entire Constitution right?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

But you don't agree with Article III?

But earlier you said their rulings weren't valid because you didn't agree with them.

So which is it, are the rulings valid or do you disagree with the Constitution?

So you agree that the rulings by the Court are valid under the Constitution, one of which happens to be the protection of our "freedom of expression."

There are very good reasons to have limitations to free speech. One great example would be inciting riots.

Even if you are right, what is the relevance to my main point in this article?

Our rights have limits.

Do you think there are legitimate reasons for restricting the freedom of expression?

Yes.

I don't believe any exist. The Government has no right to restrict the freedom of expression.

In your opinion maybe, but in the real world they do. Not by a whole lot or in very many places - but they do.

They do not. Not really.

They do in regards to being protected by the Constitution.

How much research have you done on this topic? Any?

When a nation's people allows its rights to be limited then all their rights can be allowed to be undermined to any extent that the state would want to limit it to.

Not really, since the Supreme Court has already ruled (many times) that only the most basic of restrictions are acceptable. You seem to be under the impression that any restriction means EVERY restriction.

Then again, you believe in restriction of the 2nd Amendment... so I guess you're still learning the whole "libertarian" thing.

Next they will ban anything they want. It isn't right.

You are quite wrong, since the Supreme Court has already struck down quite a few laws trying to restrict freedom. One of which WAS POSTED BY ME.

There are two scenarios. The People have rights. Or the People have no rights.

Um... you really need to work on that absolutist stuff. It doesn't work in real life.

It is part of the conspiracy to enact the New World Order on all nations.

roflmao

No. It isn't.

It is likely that it applies to the People and not the military so I don't think that there should be restrictions.

Even explosives and automatic weapons?

The Supreme Court is wrong and it is good at revealing its corruption.

Again, how much research have you done on this subject?

rhep

you really have no argument here.

yes people should be able to own automatic weapons in a free society...would it work in our society today??? hell no.

many of these hyperbole arguments you are throwing at here will not work with the mindset of americans today...you are the perfect example. you do not believe in freedom...you do not believe people should have responsibility in their lives...you do not believe people should have choice.

Libertarians are not stupid..they know that you could not enact their philosophy on a land that does not know freedom overnight...it would cause chaos.

and the uneducated people in regards to libertarianism use that as an argument against libertarianism in that it would not work.

I think it is clear that we will not agree...have a good day

peace.

many of these hyperbole arguments you are throwing at here

I am giving extremes to illustrate the flaw in her "on/off" train of thought. Many of the examples I've given are topics she has personally said we should have more laws for/against.

you are the perfect example

That was a perfect example of a straw-man. Congrats.

How about you argue against what I've said rather than what you want me to have said?

and the uneducated people in regards to libertarianism use that as an argument against libertarianism in that it would not work.

I know this better than you might imagine, but you should look at how Polka is presenting herself before you try to tell me what I believe.

I think it is clear that we will not agree...have a good day

Probably not, but that is because we are likely talking about different things.

Have a good one.

So I should look at her and how she is presenting herself?? lets see...I have had many disagreements with polka in the past and at one point was considering ignoring her.....I do however support anyone who believes in the constitution and freedom.

I think that quite possibly polka has shifted in some of her views over time.....

she is not a libertarian yet from some of her postings on certain issues......but is getting there. so you labeling her a libertarian is wrong.......but does she have libertarian leanings?? thank goodness she is starting to.

is any one person perfect????? no....but the message of freedom is.

peace.

polka

a light hearted video you might just like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvlxVMnHvvQ

more curious as to what you think of this????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx-L5mwAwIY

well she was getting at is aggression and the very problem with democracy. and the very reason our founders made us a republic.

voting away another mans rights is what happens when we use aggression.

and that is what our country has become.

So I should look at her and how she is presenting herself??

Considering that she and I were talking about her point of view, probably.

I think that quite possibly polka has shifted in some of her views over time.....

Doesn't everyone? My only issue is that her views are simple yes/no or on/off type decisions, with no room for anything else.

is any one person perfect????? no....but the message of freedom is.

My dad told me I was. :(

Yes especially explosives.

That is a restriction on our freedoms!

No heavy research. Some moderate research.

Have you read the court decision I linked last week, yet?

Which Court cases have you read? What is "moderate research?"

Have you read Snyder v. Phelps? Edwards v South Carolina? Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party?

Maybe you shouldn't go around saying the Supreme Court hates freedom until you've done some real research.

If I bought explosives for mining purposes or construction or any other purpose it wouldn't infringe on your rights.

That's like saying if everyone bought clothes that fit, sagging laws wouldn't infringe either. Your own words would restrict who could buy something and how they could use it.

What was it that you said? "Restrictions are inherently anti-freedom and only a fascist would support them for any reason."

I have not said that the Supreme Court always hates freedoms. I am saying they have a bad record of giving rulings that go against freedoms too.

You should really read more if you believe that. Could you list a few cases you don't agree with?

You've said the Supreme Court is "corrupt" more than once, btw.

I don't understand what you are talking about but I support no restrictions. People have the right to buy explosives.

But you said they should be restricted?

The Indiana Court ruling that undermines the fourth amendment is one good example. And any ruling that violates or undermines any person's first amendment rights to speech or expression for any reason.

Indiana Court isn't the Supreme Court of the United States, is it? Can you give me a case name? I'm sure they hear quite a few.

Yes you did, in #6.56 you said "especially explosives" in response to my asking if explosives and automatic weapons should be restricted.

This is reasonable to note because the US Supreme Court reversed a decision protecting the freedom of expression.

Which goes against your claims that the Supreme Court generally rules against freedom and that they're corrupt.

If you read the link, you would see that the Courts justified this by stating that the government has an "interest in protecting societal order and morality".

Because it does.

So "morality" is more important then rights to the Supreme Court?

Um... what? Do you understand the case you linked? Because it pretty clearly states that the FREEDOMto dance naked in a strip club trumps the preceived moral violation of public nudity.

Anti-freedom ruling allowing for schools to undermine the rights of children because it asserts that the rights of children are diminished in the areas of schools.

Wrong, it ruled that the newspaper owned by the school could edit articles out if they were found inappropriate. The same is true if you try to send nudie pictures to the LA Times.

So the Supreme Court believes that children are not covered by the first amendment?

That isn't what the case says at all. You clearly don't understand the ruling or you simply didn't read the entire opinion. Did you read it, or are you going by the opinion of others?

The government has the power to restrict certain rights while a person is on government property. The lady at the DMV can't wear her burqa, I can't carry my pistol, and a student can't wear some clothing.

No. You asked if they should not be restricted.

#6.52

Even explosives and automatic weapons?

Which was a reply to you saying that there shouldn't be any restrictions on our rights. But you later said there should. Which is it?

That kind of thinking is anti-freedom and shouldn't be allowed to be used by the government.

The government EXISTS to ensure domestic tranquility, part of that is "morality" and "social order."

I don't believe that.

The hell you don't. You've said you support certain restrictions while on government property.

Make up your mind.

I don't recall saying there should be restrictions if the right is regulated to the people. So no restrictions.

When you said "yes" in #6.56 I took it to mean that you wanted restrictions?

I think it likely means to protect rights not to establish rights based on some "moral" code or order.

The government protects rights, but enacts LAWS.

Only to prevent violations of the Constitution like the establishment clause. Government may not recognize religion.

Which has nothing to do with people choosing what to wear, does it?

Oh, and does this mean you agree that people should be allowed to CCW anywhere they want?

You asked if explosives and automatic weapons should be legal and I said "yes...". So no restrictions. Please don't ask again for the thousandth time.

Then what was all of the "legitimate use" stuff about?

To protect rights.

What rights do laws like jaywalking and speed limits protect?

Only if the people discussed are part of government.

While at a public school, students are part of a government institution. Just like the clerk at the DMV. Actually the student has quite a bit more freedoms than even their teachers.

Have you read Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist. yet? I think you should, you may enjoy it.

And I don't see any restrictions in the Constitution in regards to carrying a firearm anywhere so I am willing to accept complete freedom towards CCW. And there would be no violation of the Constitution by allowing even government officials to carry firearms.

That would be awesome, too bad so many people are hoplophobic.

Use of explosives for legal purposes. I can't kill with them legally. That would be murder. The same applies to a hammer. I can legally own one but I can't go to my neighbor and kill them with it.

I must have misread what you said in 6.62, I thought you were listing the allowed uses of explosives, again I apologize.

None perhaps. Laws that fail to protect rights but only undermine freedom should be abolished.

Even if they save lives?

No, students would be at a government run institution.

Taking part in the activities of the school, making them part of it.

Like I would be at a government run office if I walked into a DMV. I would not be part of it unless I worked there as an employee of the government.

No, it is more like being on a jury. You become part of the system when you sit in the box. In both cases you are taking part in the functioning of the institution.

Between certain ages you are required to go to school (6-18 for both Nebraska and California). If you choose to use the government provided schools you become part of that system and are expected to follow their rules while at school. If you refuse, you are free to learn at home or go to a private school that will accept your behavior. Freedom doesn't mean that everyone else has to do what you want.

Yes. Many laws that try to justify themselves using "saving lives" normally intrude on individual rights.

So you are against laws like jaywalking, speeding, right of way, hell most traffic laws would fall into this category.

No. Only employees are actually part of government. Children are simply there to use that government resource. They are not part of government and their rights can not be legally restricted. Only illegally restricted.

Based on...? I only ask because it is obviously not based in law.

It does not. It means that you can do what you want.

But if your behavior effects other people, you are making them do what you want. You do understand that, right?

If they infringe on our rights. They are only money making laws anyway.

So whose rights are lost?

The pedestrian getting run over or the driver doing the smashing?

The speeder that kills the bicyclist or the person that gets T-boned at an intersection?

Real life is complicated.

Based on the idea that children do not work for the government. Employees of the government do.

Which doesn't matter as they are both functioning PARTS of the various institutions.

If someone's behavior infringes on another person's rights then that would be wrong. Only a few laws actually protect that concept.

Can you give me a few examples of laws that only infringe on rights?

dont forget consensual sex laws.....anti gay laws local or state laws...such as banning of trans fat oils...banning sales of happy meals.......give me more time I could come up with much more.

Laws that protect "morality" like dress codes. Laws against drugs. Laws against growing things on one's own front yard. Laws against videotaping the police.

To my knowledge, every public dress code law has fallen.

Did you know that estimates put about 30% of all property crimes are drug related?

Laws against growing what, exactly?

Can you show me an actual law against taping police?

dont forget consensual sex laws.....anti gay laws local or state laws...such as banning of trans fat oils...banning sales of happy meals.......give me more time I could come up with much more.

You mean the sex laws that aren't enforced?

I don't know of any laws making it illegal to be gay.

Aren't most trans fat bans voted on by the public?

Who has banned Happy Meals?

Don't forget mandatory jury duty. I think I wrote an article on that recently. Maybe you can tell everyone your thoughts on it? Check my column if you want.

Jury duty is required by the Constitution. I thought you were all about our Constitution? Or is that only when you agree with it?

Mandatory jury duty is illegal based on the 13th amendment and the ban on "forced servitude". If you want to know more, read my recent article on it. You are welcome to comment on it too.

Except that you can (and many, many people do) get out of jury duty.

Can you give a link?

I read about a law somewhere that it is illegal to grow certain plants in the front yard; of course it is vague enough so it can be interpreted to mean whatever they want.

Link?

If you're talking about a HOA "law" then that's their business since they signed the contract when they moved in.

How many people would "opt in"? I would bet cash that it wouldn't be enough to cover our rights to a trial by jury. There is no "right" not to serve on said jury.

A woman was threatened jail time for growing vegetables in her own garden.

Have you read the law?

And when this case gets thrown out...?

For what reason?

Yes they do, especially if it proves to be a nuisance to the public.

I know you live in an appartment but the land between the sidewalk and the street is actually owned by the city, though you are still required to maintain it. Same thing with the sidewalk, it's on you to keep it in good shape, but you don't own it.

An example of this would be the flag the city puts in my parkway on national holidays.

Like it or not, sometimes your rights are limited because of how they impact other people.

If you decide to fill up your property with rusted out cars you can expect the city to send you a letter. Why? Because it devalues all of the property around yours, which means it effects your neighbors.

That doesn't make sense. Doesn't my right to property have equal pull with your right to decide what you want to do with yours? If it effects MY stuff too, it shouldn't just be your decision.

As far as the sidewalk/parkway thing, nobody but the city ever owned it. The adjacent property owner (the person with the yard next to the sidewalk) just has an easement, meaning they can do stuff to it and must take care of it but the city owns it (usually).

If I own my house then it is my property and the government has no right telling me what I can and can't do with it even if my actions effect others; it would only be their problem, not the government's.

That doesn't make sense. This whole time you have been saying the government is only supposed to make laws that prevent people from infringing on other peoples' rights. Now you say that the government can't protect the rights of others, even if they are being trampled upon?

Of course there is no right to keep a non-devalued home.

There is a right to private property, and if your decisions effect my property also then that must be accounted for in law. Right? You have been saying that laws are supposed to protect the rights of others, and if someone decides to do something that would effect my property then my rights should be protected.

See what I mean about real life being more complicated that you want it to be?

Any input from James on this one?

Yes but a law that dictates what people can do on their own property is infringing on their right to property.

Not if it protects the right of MORE peoples' property. Another great example of this is if your tree grows into my yard and presents a hazard. Guess who gets the bill?

Should I be allowed to drive down the street with paint guns blasting away at cars as they pass?

Devalued homes may or may not be an unintended consequence of someone's actions on their property. Not the government's problem.

BS! You just said that someone has the right to mess with the property of another, this means you have granted that person the right to effect the private property of another. I thought you were against that?

That could only work if the person has acted with malicious intent to harm another person's property through direct action against that property and it can be proven in a court of law.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

No one has any right to inflict damage on another person's property.

But you just said they did, in this very same post.

I don't expect him to post an opinion on this but James would probably agree with me.

Then you both would need to do a lot more reading.

Property owners should have the one and only say in the maintenance and control of the property.

Doesn't work like that when their decision will effect other people. Period.

It doesn't work with cars, kites, bikes, bats, clothes, businesses, toys, or anything else - and it doesn't work with land.

But devalued homes is not the problem of the person growing vegetables in her front lawn.

Bull @!$%#. Part of living with neighbors is respecting their property, and if you do something to effect their property they should have a say in the matter.

That would be vandalism.

Not at all. That charge simply restricts my right to do what I want with my car, no matter what it does to the value of stuff that isn't mine. Your own logic at work.

Someone has the right to do whatever they want on their own property even if it devalues another person's property.

So somehow their property rights outweigh the property rights of their entire neighborhood?

Please explain that logic to me. There doesn't need to be malicious intent. Seriously, you need to learn a little bit about law before you try to decide where everything fits.

That was direct action for the purposes of damaging property.

Not at all, I simply want a car that shoots paintballs. I don't want to hurt anyone or break anything.

Actions on one's own property that indirectly devalues another property is not that person's fault or problem.

Actually, according to just about every law I can find it is both. Don't believe me? Go a month without mowing your lawn.

the person doesn't agree then that person can sue.

That is a TERRIBLE plan. Do you know why we have infractions? To save the massive expense taking millions of these stupid claims to court would cost just to give the same exact verdict every time. That's the ENTIRE POINT OF HAVING LAWS.

The government needs to say out of that situation and not tell people what they can and can't do on their own property.

Who would hear the civil suit if the government was going to stay out?

Honestly, I'm just about done explaining to you how you are wrong a hundred different ways. I might as well just wait a few weeks until you change your entire world view again.

Ok. It should be legal to make a car that shoots paintballs but when you make a choice to use it to shoot another person's car then you have committed vandalism.

But there was no malicious intent, just like someone that devlaues the property of another, right?

What if I wanted to drive on the left side of the road? What if I decide red lights don't apply to me?

Because it belongs to the owner, not the neighborhood.

But it effects another person, and you have already said that if something effects more than one person then the right needs to be shared.

They can say anything they want to say but they shouldn't have any legal ability to determine what another person can do on his/her own property.

Seriously, you aren't even reading what I say before you type a response, are you?

There is no going back from a pro-freedom stance.

But there is a point where you might actually understand our laws and change your opinion.

If you shoot another person's car then you choose to damage it.

Not at all, the machine would fire itself randomly.

Then you would see a sharp reduction in your life expectancy.

But you are of the belief that it's my right to do so?

I don't remember why we are even talking about property rights and planting gardens.

Because you were complaining about some lady getting in trouble for planting a garden in her front yard.

This opinion piece was about free expression. It can't be legally limited.

Oh, but it can.

The government has no right telling people what they can and can't wear or that they even have to wear anything

What a contradicting standpoint of yours as you have said below that they should have the right to restrict the rights of others (namely government employees)

You still haven't answered my question. Why do you see government employees as some 2nd class citizen who are undeserving of the same rights as you?

All anti-free expression laws should be eliminated

Grafiti/tagging is free expression.

The government has no right telling people what they can and can't wear or that they even have to wear anything.

Good luck with that.

Our free expression is unlimited; it doesn't infringe on the rights for any other people.

You keep saying that, but I don't think it means what you think it does.

Also, an "unlimited" right would also extend to government employees, which you have already said should be restricted.

I don't know. Possibly yes but I would have to consult a libertarian on this site for more information regarding that because I have not formed my own opinion on that specific concept.

Based on everything that you've said so far, your only answer would have to be "yes."

I think the government employee example would be a violation of the establishment clause but if it isn't then they should be allowed to wear whatever they want.

You just said both "yes" and "no" there.

Which is it? Is the right unlimited or are there limits to the right?

It is unless it is made on property not owned by the person making the graffiti.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graffiti

You seriously need to learn the meanings of words before you try to use them in debate.

Then it is vandalism because the expression is infringing on the privacy and property rights of others.

But you have repeatedly claimed that free expression can NEVER infringe on the rights of another.

I will always support the People's right to free expression especially in regards to clothing.

Good for you. But you should understand that there are times when that right can legally be restricted.

I would say there is no limit for citizens but government must obey the law including the first amendment.

What has what to do with PEOPLE working for the government? Do they stop being people?

They concepts alone can not but they can be used to infringe on the rights of others as you described.

That doesn't make sense. If they can be used to infringe then the idea of free expression CAN infringe on another's rights.

If used to violate another person's rights then it is usually considered to be a crime and no longer protected.

But it is still free expression, which you said can NEVER hurt someone.

Any government restrictions on non-violating expression would be an example of oppressive and even tyrannical government control.

Just a few posts up you said free expression is unlimited and can never hurt someone else, and therefore government is being tyrannical in limiting it.

So which is it?

Rhep

Good argument. You won't get a straight answer though. I'm still waiting for Polka to answer my question above.

Like I said in a previous post, I don't think Polka knows what he/she is talking about because he/she constantly contradicts their own stance on the issue

Because I see government employees as part of government and only citizens when not part of functioning government and government has no rights.

So when they are working for the government they have no rights? They are not people? They are not citizens of the US and therefore don't have the same rights as me and you?

That is only my personal opinion though. If they are legally considered to be "citizens" even when part of government then they should have all the rights given to a citizen.

What? Nice little flash back to the 3/5ths a person rule

I think that could undermine the role of the government worker but that is another of my opinions.

Again your whole argument is a contradiction. Below you state gov't employees don't have the same rights as me and you. Here you say they only have the same rights if somehow they are considered citizens at work.

You state rights can't be infringed on but you have no problem taking them away when it suits you

You claim others can't infringe on rights yet you wanna strip them away from gov't employees

So which is it? I can say everyone deserves to practice their own religion but as soon as I say except for these people because blah blah then I am contradicting my stance. That is exactly what you are doing here.

Good argument. You won't get a straight answer though. I'm still waiting for Polka to answer my question above.

Thanks. ;) I know she won't answer but the hope is that if she sees it repeated enough she might actually look into it a little.

I would personally consider them to be "government" and not people.

So you believe certain people either A) don't have rights, at least part of their lives or B) can stop even being people.

Because I see government employees as part of government and only citizens when not part of functioning government and government has no rights.

There were also those that saw black people as only property if they were slaves and only citizens if they were free.

If they are legally considered to be "citizens" even when part of government then they should have all the rights given to a citizen.

They are, which means that you MUST agree that they should have the right to wear their preferred holy symbol if they so desire.

So which is it Polka, do they have rights or not? You keep giving both answers.

Aw dang, I had all this typed up and then saw Azerith essentially said the same thing. Oh well, it bears repeating.

So then you agree that they should be able to wear any religious symbol they want while at work.

Polka

Please explain how someone wearing a cross sit next to someone wearing a hajib sitting next to someone with a yarmulke is establishing a religion. Is it establishing Christianity? Or maybe Islam? Judaism? Is allowing someone to wear a turban establishing the Sihk religion? What about the little red dot on the foreheads of Hindu women?

But not allowing these people to wear their religious symbols would be restricting their right to practice

Why are you so inclined to violate and ignore parts of the constitution? You make claims about the government being tyrranical and not following the constitution but here you are so willing to do the same thing. You are acting no better than that which you are complaining about

I think that would count as government establishing religion but I will say that they could have that right too if it is needed for to protect the freedom of expression.

But Polka, I thought you said our personal rights were supreme above all others? Wouldn't that mean my right to free expression overrides the government's mandate against "establishment" of a religion? This is of course assuming that an employee wearing a holy symbol is establishment, which it isn't.

Because the workers are part of government and government can not establish or recognize religion or give favoritism towards any religion. Wearing religious symbols would be favoring religion.

Except that in the example the government is giving equal power to ALL religions, which means it isn't showing preference, which means no establishment. Sorry, Polka.

Yet again, Azerith is right. This whole time you have called the government tyrannical (even compared it to Saudi Arabia several times, and guess what kind of laws they have?) because you think they can't restrict one type of dress but actually ENCOURAGE the restriction of another. That is quite hypocritical, Polka.

If allowing government employees to recognize their own religion does not violate the establishment clause then it would not be unconstitutional and their rights would require protection. Freedom is a good thing and it is something that should be allowed to exist unrestrained with laws that exist only to prevent infringement on our freedoms not undermined by a very tyrannical government.

You must love to hear yourself talk. Show me a law that you think supposedly violates the constitution. What makes our government so tyrannical in your opinion?

SHOW ME A LAW!!!

Point out a law that violates freedom. You didn't make this whole thread without at least one shred of evidence did you? You were speaking about laws violating freedoms so show me one, any one, but show me at least one.

All the various statutes and laws against "indecent exposure" violate our free expression. Laws against indecent exposure may vary in the nation but serve the same purposes of telling people what they can and can't wear.

Your free expression stops when I'm offended. If you were to strip down naked in front of my son 1) I would be offended 2) you'd be lucky to make it out of there without a broken nose

You have a right to dress as you will as long as you are not EXPOSING (key word there I didn't want you to miss) yourself in an indecent manner i.e. running around naked by a preschool. Unless you think it's ok for adults to go around flashing kids, seniors, and other adults without their permission

Our right to wear what we want is under attack. There are laws established or considered against sagging pants.

There are laws considered for a variety of stupid things but it doesn't mean they are any closer to becoming an actual law. If you think a law is actually violating the constitution then take it to the Supreme Court (You know, the court that was designed by our founders)

That is wrong. The bans were rejected in some areas but that isn't preventing other areas from considering their own violations of our Constitutional law.

Stupid laws are considered on almost a daily basis. That doesn't mean anything. That is like saying I was almost robbed in Arizona cause I bank at B of A when there was one robbed in Utah.

And don't yell again on my column please.

Then join in the adult side of the conversation and answer the question instead of trying to dance around it.

Now then show me a law. You have given me a list of maybe's but no specific law. Show me a law you disagree with and prove that it goes against the constitution

My free expression doesn't stop when you are offended. There is no law that says that you have a right to not be offended. You have the right to look in a different direction. And if you hit anyone outside of self-defense then you have committed the crime of assault.

It's me freely expressing my outrage. You have all rights to walk away from my free expression of distaste.

I think free expression is an unlimited right that can't be challenged legally and do not require permission from any other person. People should be able to do whatever they want on their own property and anywhere else unless the property owners give orders for the person to leave.

How is flashing an unwilling person free expression?

Laws are established that ban sagging pants. It is illegal in two Mississippi cities.. That article was written on July 9, 2011.

Then take the law to the Supreme Court. For someone that speaks of freedoms and the constitution you sure don't want to abide by it's processes

All laws that violate our freedom of expression shouldn't be tolerated.

Which is largely based on opinion. Our freedoms are not absolute. The problem is always finding that fine line between freedom and oppression. This is why we have our court systems to interpret the constitution

I know that you have the right to disagree. It is your freedom of speech. Others would have the right to ignore you too. Of course you should have no legal way to force others to change their ways for your convenience when you can simply look away from what offends you. And you have no right to hit anyone outside of self-defense if you were referring to that.

So our rights are not absolute is what you are saying? But you just said above that everyones rights are absolute. Quit contradicting yourself

Because people don't have to keep their clothes on? They can't do that on private property that forbids it but they can do that on public lands.

Where is that in the constitution? Considering the Supreme Court, you know the highest court that interprets our constitution, thoroughly disagrees with you so show your proof.

I shouldn't fight any legal battles anywhere especially in another state. I am not a professional lawyer. I hope those laws are challenged and declared to be illegal but I would hope that it would be made illegal to make laws that violate our freedom of expression.

So what you are saying is that you are fine with talking about how something violates your rights, without showing any evidence to prove it, yet you aren't ok with taking action to protect your "freedom"? That is a very hypocritical standpoint

The only "fine line" is the line that separates my rights from the rights of another person. Your rights do not infringe on my rights. For example, you have freedom of expression until you are on my property then I can tell you to leave.

But then, by your logic, you would be violating my rights to freely roam where I please as long as I am not infringing on your rights to own your property without me damaging it.

And if you hit anyone outside of self-defense then you have committed the crime of assault.

No, you haven't. There are several instances where you can strike someone with no legal repercussions. Assault is attempted battery, by the way.

I think free expression is an unlimited right that can't be challenged legally and do not require permission from any other person.

But you just said graffiti is wrong? Which is it??

People should be able to do whatever they want on their own property and anywhere else unless the property owners give orders for the person to leave.

Yea.... no. Private property is assumed to be a "no go" unless you've been given permission by the owner. That is how it should be, and that is how it will stay.

How is flashing an unwilling person free expression?

I believe they call it sexual assault.

I shouldn't fight any legal battles anywhere especially in another state.

You shouldn't? Why not? Lawyers need a clientto represent in a case. You quite clearly don't understand the legal process you abhor so greatly.

good post...I just want to make a few points

its ok for private businesses to set standards on what they want. It is not ok for a government to set a standard.

that is the crux of this situation.....a business you do not have to solicite.....a government.,...you cannot get away from.

that is why it is ok for private business to discriminate and not a government.

Polka

Would you agree that Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District and related decisions have established that there are instances where a public school may restrict what a student wears to school?

The power to restrict is not absolute but it exists.

I'm not sure but I think the Constitutional Rights don't apply to minors. I will have to check that out...

tony

again

this is what happens when government takes over any iindustry and has the monopoly on it.

PROBLEMS.

Polka

I think if you actually read Tinker and other related cases you will find that the courts held that each case had to be evaluated since safety and other factors can lead to limitations.

I am not sure where you live but believe me in Ohio children get sent home for wearing inappropriate attire and they are also held to standards of appearance in Florida

And while I support freedom of expression, I think some limitations in a public setting where interaction with others is a key purpose of the activity or assembly are appropriate

Thanks for all the back and forth

Tony

The courts actually held that children were "citizens" when it came to protecting their 1st amendment rights, see Tinker and other cases

Tinker v. Des Moines, thank you Robert, seems they do have 1st amendment rights. Good to know.

Polka

Okay then it has dawned on me that you are not arguing based on facts but rather on your opinion of how things should be.

I respect that and will refrain from pointing out legal precedents to you

It is impossible for the first amendment to violate another person's rights.

So you believe I can say anything I want to, or about, anyone I feel like and they should have no legal recourse??

Real Life is a tad more complicated than "Well, it's MAH RIGHTS!!!1!"

Tinker v. Des Moines, thank you Robert, seems they do have 1st amendment rights. Good to know.

#4

Okay then it has dawned on me that you are not arguing based on facts but rather on your opinion of how things should be.

Bingo.

Only slander should be against the law because that can bring emotional or economic damages against another person.

But you said freedom of expression can't hurt anyone. Which is it?

Words are only words.

Slander is only words.

Sagging doesn't harm anyone. Most people dislike it but they shouldn't get to decide that some people can't wear it.

Wtf are you talking about? That law was thrown out a while ago.

We can't allow exceptions to the first amendment or we may start mimicking France and their ban on religious clothing they don't like.

Holy crap, a reference to a country other than Saudi Arabia!

You are right. I shouldn't have said anything that would appear to be in favor of restricting the first amendment. Slander is only words. It doesn't hurt anyone. No words should ever be restricted in this nation. The same principles must apply to clothing too.

Except that wouldn't work in modern society.

Saudi Arabia is the best nation to reference but France is starting on the path to Saudi Arabia status so I decided to reference it too.

LOL! What about all of those other evil restrictive nations? Like those in the entire EU, South America, Asia, and the Middle East?

I hear Somalia has pretty permissive free speech laws....

The freedom of expression is continuously under attack and people have called out for various forms of expression to be banned under new laws but there can be no legal justification for banning styles of clothing

FFS.

You are getting mad about a law that has already been struck down as unconstitutional.

And those school dress codes continue to exist. Unconstitutional.

No. They are not.

I suggest you get busy reading that Constitution of yours.

Why not?

For the exact reason there are so many cases involving the 1st Amendment.

France is a case where a nation decides to restrict its own population. The US shouldn't mimic those actions in the republic of France or any other nation including Saudi Arabia.

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

Only if you think children are not protected by the first amendment of the Constitution.

You would only believe that if you don't understand the Constitution.

Did you forget that pesky little part where it says that the government shall pass no laws prohibiting the free expression of ones religious views? are just picking and choosing that parts you like?

Oh and there is no separation of church and state in the constitution. It says that the government can not institute a rgovernment sactioned church such as the church of England

Government employees may not undermine the separation of church and state so any attempt to bring religious propaganda into their job would be unconstitutional. Anything not prohibited by the Constitution must be allowed by government officials. Government agencies are not private and is governed by the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

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.

Bold is mine. You said it yourself, the government has no right to prohibit the exercise of religion.

If they wear religious articles then it makes the government appear to endorse their religion.

How so? If they go out of their way to ban religious symbols it would appear that the government endorses atheism.

Remember how the government can't show favoritism for or against religion?

So disallowing religious symbols doesn't show favoritism towards those that have no religious symbol?

Polka,

I think Im a little confused as to what you are saying. If I am reading you correctly, and please clarify if I am not, you dont want government employees wearing religious symbols, yet you are against a ban on Muslim women covering their faces. Both are forms of religious expression so either both should be legal, or both should be illegal. Which is it?

So it is unconstitutional for the schools to expect it's students to wear appropriate clothing because it violates their right to free expression but it is ok to violate the rights of religious people their right of free expression. Showing underwear is fine a cross is not.

Banning specific symbols isn't neutrality, letting people decide for themselves what they will wear is neutrality.

Polka
Can the government then refuse to employ a Sikh(sp?) since they ate required to wear a turban as part of their religion? After all we would not want to show any kind of favoritism now would we or is it only Christian symbols you object to ?

According to you the government can discriminate from employment Orthodox Jews required to wear a yarmulke or a Hesidic (sp) Jew or a Muslim woman who is required to wear a hajib a Sikh who must wear a turban. How about a Muslim man who's particular type of beleif requires him to not shave?

Are all these people restricted from government service? How does any of the by following the free expression of their religion violate the constitution? How does the government violate the constitution by allowing them there rights to wear what they demm important and appropriate? I'll bet that there are alot of people that will need to be dismissed from government service because of your interpretation.

Polka, you are ignoring the other part. Let's take another look.

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.

Notice the bold part? Banning the wearing of a hijab or turban would be prohibiting the free exercise of their religion.

Based on what? How does one part of the SAME amendment trump the other? It doesn't show establishment if they allow all symbols rather than just a few.

If the government only allowed crosses, or hijabs, or the Star of David, or pentacles you might have an argument - but if they allow everything then you really don't.

Show me where it says it can not recognize a religion. If you read it (and it has been posted here several times) it cannot establish a religion. That means it it can not impose a religion on the citizens or show any partiality to any one religion. By allowing government employees to wear symbols or garments associated with ther beleifs in no way establishes a state religion.

The government can't recognize religion. The establishment clause implies that too.

Um...what?

I think that is how it should work if you follow the law as written.

I don't think you understand the law as written.

I am not contradicting myself. Government employees must protect the first amendment.

By restricting the rights of their employees to possess their own religious jewlery? That is a contradiction

That includes not establishing religion.

Government has not officially established a religion

There is a separation between church and state and while a person is working for the government that person is the state.

No, that is a person working for the state and still has the same rights under the constitution as everyone else

For someone espousing about freedoms you sure don't have a problem restricting the rights of certain individuals

Government can't be seen as endorsing religion in any way.

But they cannot restrict the practice thereof either and by saying a person employed by the government cannot own or wear their own personal religious jewelry you are doing just that

You keep contradicting yourself. You speak about freedoms but want to yank it away from a few because of who they work for

People employed by the government can own their own religious articles but not while working.

A persons employer does not eliminate them from being an individual. A persons employer does not eliminate them from being a citizen. It does not disqualify them from having the same rights as you or anyone else

Just because that person WORKS for the government does not mean that they ARE the government. Therefor they are not disqualified from the same rights as you

While working they are part of government and shouldn't be seen as endorsing any religion over another.

But you are restricting their right of practice. Therefor you are STILL violating the Constitution

I think we may not agree on this. I think open expression of religion from government employees violates the separation between religion and state. There is no freedom to violate that.

There is NO part of the Constitution that states seperation of religion and state

It says the government shall not condone OR restrict religion

That is what you are wanting to do. So why are you so inclined to discriminate against a select few? Why are you so inclined to allow the government to restrict the rights of a few?

Why are you so inclined to do the same exact thing that you are railing against?

Again you are contradicting yourself

solve the problem by getting the government out of schools...and nearly everywhere else...then who cares what they do....increasing individual freedom should be our goal.

we can start with the private sector..

That is normally acknowledged as an implied part of the first amendment. There is a separation of religion and state.

Only in the words of the constitutions which the gov't can't condone or restrict the right to practice a religion

They have no right to practice religion at government institutions. Separation of religion and state applies.

We are not talking about holding church at a court house so stay on topic

Government can not express religion towards others. All their employees from school teachers to the US Senate can't violate the first amendment and the separation of religion and state because they are part of the government.

The gov't is not the one expressing the religion. They are recognizing the individual has a constitutional right to practice and believe whatever religion they want

I see all government expression or recognition of religion as an illegal violation of the law.

Gov't is not expressing a religion. The employees are so answer the question

Why are you so inclined to deny that right to a few individuals? Why do you feel the need to constantly contradict your stance?

Because they don't have that right at work as part of the government.

So a government employee to you is some type of 2nd class citizen who does not have the same rights as you?

Very narrow minded view and very hypocritical standpoint since you just ranted about rights and the constitution

Public schools? Without government there would be no public school system.

That would be the idea, no more government involvement in the school system.

Because they don't have that right at work as part of the government.

Nor do students have a right to do anything they want while at school.

You admit our rights are not unlimited, especially while involved with the government. It's almost like you want to ignore the parts of the Constitution you don't agree with while claiming the parts you support are unlimited in power.