| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"John D. Wentzky" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2007 08:12:03 AM |
| Object: |
Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fworldnetdaily.com%2Fnews%2Farticle.asp%3FARTICLE_ID%3D57522
Yes. Note that secularism and pro-gay and pro-choice are philosophies and
they have no constitutional right to infringe on the anti-gay or anti-choice
agenda in the USA.
Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are LAW in the USA!
.
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
11 Sep 2007 10:28:20 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fworldnetdaily.com%2Fnews%2Farticle.asp%3FARTICLE_ID%3D57522
Yes. Note that secularism and pro-gay and pro-choice are philosophies and
they have no constitutional right to infringe on the anti-gay or anti-choice
agenda in the USA.
Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are LAW in the USA!
So? Start exercising your freedom of religion on someone else's property and
see how fast you get ejected (preferably at high speed).
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
11 Sep 2007 08:22:17 AM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%...
Note that this had to do with a private, parochial school, not a
public school or venue. Different rules apply to private schools
because they do not receive public funds from the state.
Yes. Note that secularism and pro-gay and pro-choice are philosophies and
they have no constitutional right to infringe on the anti-gay or anti-choice
agenda in the USA.
They do, however, have the right to fight such hateful agendas and the
anti-gay and anti-choice agendas. They have the right to work to see
that your philosophy and agenda never becomes strong enough to harm
people and prevent then from having and exercising their rights.
Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are LAW in the USA!
And that is what gives people the right to fight your agendas.
Remember, it works both ways.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
11 Sep 2007 11:53:57 AM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189516937.933221.194370@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%...
Note that this had to do with a private, parochial school, not a
public school or venue. Different rules apply to private schools
because they do not receive public funds from the state.
How does any public school or venue have any right to violate the peoples'
First Amendment rights?
Public Schools aren't Congress.
They are NOT forbidden from making codes that honor philopsophies that
conflict with your secularist philopsophy.
Such is the concept of freedom that honors the peoples' rights to be free of
policies they disagree with.
Yes. Note that secularism and pro-gay and pro-choice are philosophies and
they have no constitutional right to infringe on the anti-gay or
anti-choice
agenda in the USA.
They do, however, have the right to fight such hateful agendas and the
anti-gay and anti-choice agendas.
You see religion as being hateful towards persons while those who adhere to
religious teachings do not agree with your philosophy.
The First Amendment gives you no right to prohibit the peoples' rights.
Is that hard for you to understand?
They have the right to work to see that your philosophy and agenda never
becomes strong enough to harm
people and prevent then from having and exercising their rights.
Flip side of that is that the people you contest have rights that ensure
their behaviors.
Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are LAW in the USA!
And that is what gives people the right to fight your agendas.
What groups are fighting Free Exercise of Religion or Freedom of Speech?
Remember, it works both ways.
I do know that, but the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a right to
prohibit free exercise of religion, either in the public sector or the
private sector.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
11 Sep 2007 12:32:54 PM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189516937.933221.194370@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%...
Note that this had to do with a private, parochial school, not a
public school or venue. Different rules apply to private schools
because they do not receive public funds from the state.
How does any public school or venue have any right to violate the peoples'
First Amendment rights?
No idea what you are talking about here.
Public Schools aren't Congress.
Public schools are, however, a branch of the government since the
schools are paid for by taxes.
They are NOT forbidden from making codes that honor philopsophies that
conflict with your secularist philopsophy.
Actually, public schools are forbidden from promoting any religion.
They MUST support a "secularist philosophy" since they cannot support
a theological one.
Such is the concept of freedom that honors the peoples' rights to be free of
policies they disagree with.
However, we are talking about a branch of the government, and the
government cannot impose any religious viewpoint on any of its
policies.
Yes. Note that secularism and pro-gay and pro-choice are philosophies and
they have no constitutional right to infringe on the anti-gay or
anti-choice agenda in the USA.
They do, however, have the right to fight such hateful agendas and the
anti-gay and anti-choice agendas.
You see religion as being hateful towards persons while those who adhere to
religious teachings do not agree with your philosophy.
That is because they generally are hateful to such people.
The First Amendment gives you no right to prohibit the peoples' rights.
Since I am not trying to prohibit anyone's rights, I have nothing to
worry about.
Is that hard for you to understand?
I understand it better than you, since I am the one that is promoting
people's rights, and you are trying to reduce and eliminate them.
They have the right to work to see that your philosophy and agenda never
becomes strong enough to harm
people and prevent then from having and exercising their rights.
Flip side of that is that the people you contest have rights that ensure
their behaviors.
No, they do not. people can only ensure their own behaviors. They
cannot ensure and control the behaviors of others, especially when the
reason for the control is because of the controller's religious
beliefs. That is an imposition of one's religious beliefs onto
another, and is prohibited to the government by the Constitution.
Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are LAW in the USA!
And that is what gives people the right to fight your agendas.
What groups are fighting Free Exercise of Religion or Freedom of Speech?
The far religious right are fighting the Free Exercise of Religion,
which includes you. They include the RCC, Focus on Family, ACLJ, and
many others.
Remember, it works both ways.
I do know that,
Do you?
but the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a right to
prohibit free exercise of religion,
Actually, the First Amendment prohibits the government from inhibiting
the free exercise of religion, and forbids it from favoring any
religion over any others. Anything passed by them must be secular in
nature, and treat all religious organizations equally.
The First Amendment does not prohibit the free exercise of religion
within a family. A parent can forbid any religious practices that he
or she wants from any of their children until the child is 18 and/or
in their home or on their property.
either in the public sector or the private sector.
The First Amendment only affects the public sector, i.e. the
government. The laws of the government prohibit religious
discrimination in most of the private sector. There are exceptions,
such as very small businesses, overtly religious organizations (such
as churches), and religious schools.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
11 Sep 2007 12:54:16 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189531974.970929.142820@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189516937.933221.194370@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%...
Note that this had to do with a private, parochial school, not a
public school or venue. Different rules apply to private schools
because they do not receive public funds from the state.
How does any public school or venue have any right to violate the
peoples'
First Amendment rights?
No idea what you are talking about here.
Public Schools aren't Congress.
Public schools are, however, a branch of the government since the
schools are paid for by taxes.
Public schools are operated by localities.
Acting as if foreign districts have more authority than those who are paying
for their own schools is weirdo policy.
They are NOT forbidden from making codes that honor philopsophies that
conflict with your secularist philopsophy.
Actually, public schools are forbidden from promoting any religion.
Where in law are you reading that, verbatim?
They MUST support a "secularist philosophy" since they cannot support
a theological one.
*****.
They are prohibited from instituting secularsim as their philosophical
guide.
The government is FORBIDDEN from prohibitng Free Exercise of Religion.
Such is the concept of freedom that honors the peoples' rights to be free
of
policies they disagree with.
However, we are talking about a branch of the government,
The municipalities are ensured, by the Constitution, that their right are
not taken away by any governmental policy.
and the government cannot impose any religious viewpoint on any of its
policies.
No one said the government was trying to impose a religious viewpoint.
The Constitutional framework ensures that the PEOPLE must be represented and
it also ensures that the government can NOT prohibit free exercise of
religion.
Yes. Note that secularism and pro-gay and pro-choice are philosophies
and
they have no constitutional right to infringe on the anti-gay or
anti-choice agenda in the USA.
They do, however, have the right to fight such hateful agendas and the
anti-gay and anti-choice agendas.
You see religion as being hateful towards persons while those who adhere
to
religious teachings do not agree with your philosophy.
That is because they generally are hateful to such people.
That is your perspective.
The First Amendment gives you no right to prohibit the peoples' rights.
Since I am not trying to prohibit anyone's rights, I have nothing to
worry about.
You act as if the people are not entitled to the rights they are guaranteed.
Is that hard for you to understand?
I understand it better than you, since I am the one that is promoting
people's rights, and you are trying to reduce and eliminate them.
*****.
You are only supporting treasonous anti-USA *****.
They have the right to work to see that your philosophy and agenda
never
becomes strong enough to harm
people and prevent then from having and exercising their rights.
Flip side of that is that the people you contest have rights that ensure
their behaviors.
No, they do not.
Wrong, again, militaristic, tax leech mythology boy.
people can only ensure their own behaviors.
So, why are you so reliant on an armed militia?
They cannot ensure and control the behaviors of others, especially when
the
reason for the control is because of the controller's religious
beliefs.
What control, militia taxboy?
That is an imposition of one's religious beliefs onto
another, and is prohibited to the government by the Constitution.
The people are guaranteed the right to free exwercise of religion.
They are also guaranteed that the government can not prohibit it.
Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are LAW in the USA!
And that is what gives people the right to fight your agendas.
What groups are fighting Free Exercise of Religion or Freedom of Speech?
The far religious right are fighting the Free Exercise of Religion,
which includes you.
What religion are you espousing, secrecy loon?
Either admit your religion or be cast out as a coward who hasn't the courage
to admit his religion.
Without confessing your religion you are judged by default to be devoid of
religion which grants unto you zero free exercise rights.
They include the RCC, Focus on Family, ACLJ, and
many others.
But, you have no religion, since you fail to confess it, which grants unto
you ZERO free exercise rights.
Remember, it works both ways.
I do know that,
Do you?
but the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a right to
prohibit free exercise of religion,
Actually, the First Amendment prohibits the government from inhibiting
the free exercise of religion, and forbids it from favoring any
religion over any others. Anything passed by them must be secular in
nature, and treat all religious organizations equally.
It doesn't say secular.
Your use of words that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution destroys
your platform.
The First Amendment does not prohibit the free exercise of religion
within a family.
Or anywhere else within the entire USA.
There is no restriction on free exercise of religion.
A parent can forbid any religious practices that he
or she wants from any of their children until the child is 18 and/or
in their home or on their property.
What if a child, since you are against children being treated as chattel,
brings a suit against their atheistic or secularist parents in court?
See the danger to persons who treat their children criminally?
either in the public sector or the private sector.
The First Amendment only affects the public sector, i.e. the
government.
*****.
Read it again.
It never says what you asserted.
The laws of the government prohibit religious
discrimination in most of the private sector.
Unless you work for TWA and have every sabbath off and then get transferred
and then dismissed because they require you to work on the sabbath,
remember?
There are exceptions, such as very small businesses, overtly religious
organizations (such
as churches), and religious schools.
But, you think that gangsta tactics that go against the rights of the people
are lawful.
Which is an egregious transgression of the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
11 Sep 2007 02:20:02 PM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 1:54 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189531974.970929.142820@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189516937.933221.194370@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%...
Note that this had to do with a private, parochial school, not a
public school or venue. Different rules apply to private schools
because they do not receive public funds from the state.
How does any public school or venue have any right to violate the
peoples'
First Amendment rights?
No idea what you are talking about here.
Public Schools aren't Congress.
Public schools are, however, a branch of the government since the
schools are paid for by taxes.
Public schools are operated by localities.
How does that address his point that _funding_ comes from the
government?
Acting as if foreign districts have more authority than those who are paying
for their own schools is weirdo policy.
Not all school funding comes from local tax payers.
They are NOT forbidden from making codes that honor philopsophies that
conflict with your secularist philopsophy.
Actually, public schools are forbidden from promoting any religion.
Where in law are you reading that, verbatim?
They MUST support a "secularist philosophy" since they cannot support
a theological one.
*****.
They are prohibited from instituting secularsim as their philosophical
guide.
The government is FORBIDDEN from prohibitng Free Exercise of Religion.
And, it's forbidden from promoting one religion over the other as
well.
Such is the concept of freedom that honors the peoples' rights to be free
of
policies they disagree with.
However, we are talking about a branch of the government,
The municipalities are ensured, by the Constitution, that their right are
not taken away by any governmental policy.
Municipalities ARE government.
and the government cannot impose any religious viewpoint on any of its
policies.
No one said the government was trying to impose a religious viewpoint.
The Constitutional framework ensures that the PEOPLE must be represented and
it also ensures that the government can NOT prohibit free exercise of
religion.
Along with not promoting one religion over any other.
Yes. Note that secularism and pro-gay and pro-choice are philosophies
and
they have no constitutional right to infringe on the anti-gay or
anti-choice agenda in the USA.
They do, however, have the right to fight such hateful agendas and the
anti-gay and anti-choice agendas.
You see religion as being hateful towards persons while those who adhere
to
religious teachings do not agree with your philosophy.
That is because they generally are hateful to such people.
That is your perspective.
No, this behavior can be observed.
The First Amendment gives you no right to prohibit the peoples' rights.
Since I am not trying to prohibit anyone's rights, I have nothing to
worry about.
You act as if the people are not entitled to the rights they are guaranteed.
No, he's not.
Is that hard for you to understand?
I understand it better than you, since I am the one that is promoting
people's rights, and you are trying to reduce and eliminate them.
*****.
You are only supporting treasonous anti-USA *****.
Ahh, here we go...
They have the right to work to see that your philosophy and agenda
never
becomes strong enough to harm
people and prevent then from having and exercising their rights.
Flip side of that is that the people you contest have rights that ensure
their behaviors.
No, they do not.
Wrong, again, militaristic, tax leech mythology boy.
Yep, you know Johnny's been defeated when he resorts to these
tactics...
people can only ensure their own behaviors.
So, why are you so reliant on an armed militia?
They cannot ensure and control the behaviors of others, especially when
the
reason for the control is because of the controller's religious
beliefs.
What control, militia taxboy?
Legislating religious beliefs.
That is an imposition of one's religious beliefs onto
another, and is prohibited to the government by the Constitution.
The people are guaranteed the right to free exwercise of religion.
They are also guaranteed that the government can not prohibit it.
And, the government can not support one religion over any other.
Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are LAW in the USA!
And that is what gives people the right to fight your agendas.
What groups are fighting Free Exercise of Religion or Freedom of Speech?
The far religious right are fighting the Free Exercise of Religion,
which includes you.
What religion are you espousing, secrecy loon?
Either admit your religion or be cast out as a coward who hasn't the courage
to admit his religion.
Without confessing your religion you are judged by default to be devoid of
religion which grants unto you zero free exercise rights.
LOL!!! Where does it say that one must have a religion? Oh let me
guess, you'll pull some ***** out of your ***** like you did when
claiming that all crimes have a statute of limitations?
They include the RCC, Focus on Family, ACLJ, and
many others.
But, you have no religion, since you fail to confess it, which grants unto
you ZERO free exercise rights.
So what? If you don't profess a religion, you don't need to exercise
one, do you?
Remember, it works both ways.
I do know that,
Do you?
but the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a right to
prohibit free exercise of religion,
Actually, the First Amendment prohibits the government from inhibiting
the free exercise of religion, and forbids it from favoring any
religion over any others. Anything passed by them must be secular in
nature, and treat all religious organizations equally.
It doesn't say secular.
What do you think a lack of religion is?
Your use of words that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution destroys
your platform.
Read for CONTEXT next time.
The First Amendment does not prohibit the free exercise of religion
within a family.
Or anywhere else within the entire USA.
There is no restriction on free exercise of religion.
Unless of course, you a restricting someone else's free exercise of
religion. Which is exactly what would happen if the government
supported one religion and not another.
A parent can forbid any religious practices that he
or she wants from any of their children until the child is 18 and/or
in their home or on their property.
What if a child, since you are against children being treated as chattel,
brings a suit against their atheistic or secularist parents in court?
It would get tossed out.
See the danger to persons who treat their children criminally?
Not allowing your children to go to church isn't a crime, moron. Let
me guess, you going to claim to understand the law better than anyone
and claim it is...I can't wait.
either in the public sector or the private sector.
The First Amendment only affects the public sector, i.e. the
government.
*****.
Read it again.
It never says what you asserted.
For whom do you think it's written then?
The laws of the government prohibit religious
discrimination in most of the private sector.
Unless you work for TWA and have every sabbath off and then get transferred
and then dismissed because they require you to work on the sabbath,
remember?
There are exceptions, such as very small businesses, overtly religious
organizations (such
as churches), and religious schools.
But, you think that gangsta tactics that go against the rights of the people
are lawful.
Which is an egregious transgression of the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
11 Sep 2007 03:02:27 PM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189538402.149810.29800@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 1:54 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189531974.970929.142820@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189516937.933221.194370@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%...
Note that this had to do with a private, parochial school, not a
public school or venue. Different rules apply to private schools
because they do not receive public funds from the state.
How does any public school or venue have any right to violate the
peoples'
First Amendment rights?
No idea what you are talking about here.
Public Schools aren't Congress.
Public schools are, however, a branch of the government since the
schools are paid for by taxes.
Public schools are operated by localities.
How does that address his point that _funding_ comes from the
government?
The people pay taxes to fund school operations.
What makes you think the people are the government?
And, the government is bound ot honor the peoples' first amendment rights.
How does that chage the fact that there is no protection for atheistic
charades in government or schools?
Acting as if foreign districts have more authority than those who are
paying
for their own schools is weirdo policy.
Not all school funding comes from local tax payers.
Which does absolutely nothing to nullfiy the peoples' rights in their
repsoective locality.
Thought you dogmeat agenda could get over on the people who reside in their
own jurisdictions?
How about learning that if you give people money they will do what they want
to do with it instead of complying with blatantly violable policies?
Next time you give someone some money remember the phrase "Indian giver".
Once the money leaves your hands it is gone.
They are NOT forbidden from making codes that honor philopsophies that
conflict with your secularist philopsophy.
Actually, public schools are forbidden from promoting any religion.
Where in law are you reading that, verbatim?
They MUST support a "secularist philosophy" since they cannot support
a theological one.
*****.
They are prohibited from instituting secularsim as their philosophical
guide.
The government is FORBIDDEN from prohibitng Free Exercise of Religion.
And, it's forbidden from promoting one religion over the other as
well.
I am aware of that.
But, it has no capacity to rebuke a group of people who are predominantly of
one faith in a locality.
And, since there is free exercise of religion, persons with no religion are
not afforded that luxury.
Such is the concept of freedom that honors the peoples' rights to be
free
of
policies they disagree with.
However, we are talking about a branch of the government,
The municipalities are ensured, by the Constitution, that their rights
are
not taken away by any governmental policy.
Municipalities ARE government.
The people are paying those governments CASH on the barrel head.
I have a tax bill with me now which I am not totally unhappy to pay, other
than the fact that it transgresses my 4th Amendment right to be safe and
secure in my possessions and effects against unreasonable search and
seizure.
Centralized, mandated taxes upon the people aren't like the school systems
of yesteryear where the teachers and the children were provided for by the
parents of the children who attended the schools.
There is much to be said about free election of teachers as opposed to state
institutions that take from every property owner to teach a small segment of
people.
and the government cannot impose any religious viewpoint on any of its
policies.
No one said the government was trying to impose a religious viewpoint.
The Constitutional framework ensures that the PEOPLE must be represented
and
it also ensures that the government can NOT prohibit free exercise of
religion.
Along with not promoting one religion over any other.
Which would in no way disallow a school from presenting any religion of the
peoples' choice.
The peoples' voice is superior to your idea that government can prohibit
free exercise.
It is quite immaterial to the fact that the peoples' rights can't be
infringed and the government isn't seen as endorsing any particular religion
when the people endorse it themsleves.
The part that causes these disputes is the bondage that taxation places upon
persons.
Yes. Note that secularism and pro-gay and pro-choice are
philosophies
and
they have no constitutional right to infringe on the anti-gay or
anti-choice agenda in the USA.
They do, however, have the right to fight such hateful agendas and
the
anti-gay and anti-choice agendas.
You see religion as being hateful towards persons while those who
adhere
to
religious teachings do not agree with your philosophy.
That is because they generally are hateful to such people.
That is your perspective.
No, this behavior can be observed.
Observed in the classroom where gay studies are taught with PUBLIC MONEY?
The First Amendment gives you no right to prohibit the peoples'
rights.
Since I am not trying to prohibit anyone's rights, I have nothing to
worry about.
You act as if the people are not entitled to the rights they are
guaranteed.
No, he's not.
Ridiculous.
SF isn't the nation's capitol.
Neither is Boston.
Is that hard for you to understand?
I understand it better than you, since I am the one that is promoting
people's rights, and you are trying to reduce and eliminate them.
*****.
You are only supporting treasonous anti-USA *****.
Ahh, here we go...
Derailing your taliban *****.
They have the right to work to see that your philosophy and agenda
never
becomes strong enough to harm
people and prevent then from having and exercising their rights.
Flip side of that is that the people you contest have rights that
ensure
their behaviors.
No, they do not.
Wrong, again, militaristic, tax leech mythology boy.
Yep, you know Johnny's been defeated when he resorts to these
tactics...
How so?
people can only ensure their own behaviors.
So, why are you so reliant on an armed militia?
They cannot ensure and control the behaviors of others, especially when
the
reason for the control is because of the controller's religious
beliefs.
What control, militia taxboy?
Legislating religious beliefs.
Looks to me like the verbatim Constitution is much religious beliefs.
Got a problem with that?
That is an imposition of one's religious beliefs onto
another, and is prohibited to the government by the Constitution.
The people are guaranteed the right to free exercise of religion.
They are also guaranteed that the government can not prohibit it.
And, the government can not support one religion over any other.
So, why do you freak out when a school has Christian teachings?
If the government is prohibtied from supporting one religion over another
and there is free exercise of religion, then how is disallowing Christian
teachings, if a school partakes in such, not, in effect, respecting any
establishment of religion above Christianity?
Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are LAW in the USA!
And that is what gives people the right to fight your agendas.
What groups are fighting Free Exercise of Religion or Freedom of
Speech?
The far religious right are fighting the Free Exercise of Religion,
which includes you.
What religion are you espousing, secrecy loon?
Either admit your religion or be cast out as a coward who hasn't the
courage
to admit his religion.
Without confessing your religion you are judged by default to be devoid
of
religion which grants unto you zero free exercise rights.
LOL!!! Where does it say that one must have a religion?
To have free exercise of religion you must have a religion.
Oh let me guess, you'll pull some ***** out of your ***** like you did
when
claiming that all crimes have a statute of limitations?
Verbatim First Amendment doesn't give you free exercise of religion if you
have no religion.
They include the RCC, Focus on Family, ACLJ, and
many others.
But, you have no religion, since you fail to confess it, which grants
unto
you ZERO free exercise rights.
So what? If you don't profess a religion, you don't need to exercise
one, do you?
Looks ok to me.
Just that you have no ability to prohibit anyone else's free exercise of
religion rights.
Remember, it works both ways.
I do know that,
Do you?
but the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a right to
prohibit free exercise of religion,
Actually, the First Amendment prohibits the government from inhibiting
the free exercise of religion, and forbids it from favoring any
religion over any others. Anything passed by them must be secular in
nature, and treat all religious organizations equally.
It doesn't say secular.
What do you think a lack of religion is?
atheism.
Your use of words that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution
destroys
your platform.
Read for CONTEXT next time.
Read it verbatim.
The First Amendment does not prohibit the free exercise of religion
within a family.
Or anywhere else within the entire USA.
There is no restriction on free exercise of religion.
Unless of course, you a restricting someone else's free exercise of
religion.
A lack of religion would not qualify a person to be protected against those
who are engaged in free exercise of their religion, correct?
Which is exactly what would happen if the government
supported one religion and not another.
Prohibiting free exercise of religion is what the government is prohibted
from doing.
Since when would it be congress making a law that respects an establishment
of religion of a school declared themselves to be a Christian school, even
if it were a municipal institution?
A parent can forbid any religious practices that he
or she wants from any of their children until the child is 18 and/or
in their home or on their property.
What if a child, since you are against children being treated as chattel,
brings a suit against their atheistic or secularist parents in court?
It would get tossed out.
Why?
The child would have free exercise of religion rights, and the athiestic
parents would not have the ability to prohibit the child's free exercise fo
religion.
Are you saying the courts are here not to represent the people according to
the constitution?
See the danger to persons who treat their children criminally?
Not allowing your children to go to church isn't a crime, moron.
Would that be some sort of satanic bondage and discipline rountine you have
or would it be more of I need my money, honey, to raise you?
I can't dispute the fact that not giving your money away isn't stupid.
Let me guess, you going to claim to understand the law better than anyone
and claim it is...I can't wait.
You can do what you want to do as long as it doesn't violate others' rights,
imo.
either in the public sector or the private sector.
The First Amendment only affects the public sector, i.e. the
government.
*****.
Read it again.
It never says what you asserted.
For whom do you think it's written then?
The people of the USA.
Read it and see where it says 'the people'.
Who do you think it is written for?
The laws of the government prohibit religious
discrimination in most of the private sector.
Unless you work for TWA and have every sabbath off and then get
transferred
and then dismissed because they require you to work on the sabbath,
remember?
There are exceptions, such as very small businesses, overtly religious
organizations (such
as churches), and religious schools.
But, you think that gangsta tactics that go against the rights of the
people
are lawful.
Which is an egregious transgression of the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
12 Sep 2007 09:07:29 AM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 4:02 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189538402.149810.29800@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 1:54 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189531974.970929.142820@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189516937.933221.194370@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%...
Note that this had to do with a private, parochial school, not a
public school or venue. Different rules apply to private schools
because they do not receive public funds from the state.
How does any public school or venue have any right to violate the
peoples'
First Amendment rights?
No idea what you are talking about here.
Public Schools aren't Congress.
Public schools are, however, a branch of the government since the
schools are paid for by taxes.
Public schools are operated by localities.
How does that address his point that _funding_ comes from the
government?
The people pay taxes to fund school operations.
Which goes to the local GOVERNMENT.
What makes you think the people are the government?
LOL!! What makes you think that I think that, your poor reading
skills perhaps?
And, the government is bound ot honor the peoples' first amendment rights.
How does that chage the fact that there is no protection for atheistic
charades in government or schools?
Prove that this is a "fact". This should be good.
Acting as if foreign districts have more authority than those who are
paying
for their own schools is weirdo policy.
Not all school funding comes from local tax payers.
Which does absolutely nothing to nullfiy the peoples' rights in their
repsoective locality.
It means the schools are required to not recognize one religion over
another.
Thought you dogmeat agenda could get over on the people who reside in their
own jurisdictions?
How about learning that if you give people money they will do what they want
to do with it instead of complying with blatantly violable policies?
We're talking about the government funding schools, not people,
dipshit.
Next time you give someone some money remember the phrase "Indian giver".
Once the money leaves your hands it is gone.
They are NOT forbidden from making codes that honor philopsophies that
conflict with your secularist philopsophy.
Actually, public schools are forbidden from promoting any religion.
Where in law are you reading that, verbatim?
They MUST support a "secularist philosophy" since they cannot support
a theological one.
*****.
They are prohibited from instituting secularsim as their philosophical
guide.
The government is FORBIDDEN from prohibitng Free Exercise of Religion.
And, it's forbidden from promoting one religion over the other as
well.
I am aware of that.
But, it has no capacity to rebuke a group of people who are predominantly of
one faith in a locality.
And, since there is free exercise of religion, persons with no religion are
not afforded that luxury.
Since they don't have a religion, why would they worry about
practicing one?
Such is the concept of freedom that honors the peoples' rights to be
free
of
policies they disagree with.
However, we are talking about a branch of the government,
The municipalities are ensured, by the Constitution, that their rights
are
not taken away by any governmental policy.
Municipalities ARE government.
The people are paying those governments CASH on the barrel head.
So what, how does that make them less of a government?
I have a tax bill with me now which I am not totally unhappy to pay, other
than the fact that it transgresses my 4th Amendment right to be safe and
secure in my possessions and effects against unreasonable search and
seizure.
It does not such thing. You always twist the definitions of the
constitution to mean what you want them to.
And, if you think it transgresses your rights, file a law suit and
quit whining.
Centralized, mandated taxes upon the people aren't like the school systems
of yesteryear where the teachers and the children were provided for by the
parents of the children who attended the schools.
There is much to be said about free election of teachers as opposed to state
institutions that take from every property owner to teach a small segment of
people.
and the government cannot impose any religious viewpoint on any of its
policies.
No one said the government was trying to impose a religious viewpoint.
The Constitutional framework ensures that the PEOPLE must be represented
and
it also ensures that the government can NOT prohibit free exercise of
religion.
Along with not promoting one religion over any other.
Which would in no way disallow a school from presenting any religion of the
peoples' choice.
I choose no religion in school, now what?
The peoples' voice is superior to your idea that government can prohibit
free exercise.
It is quite immaterial to the fact that the peoples' rights can't be
infringed and the government isn't seen as endorsing any particular religion
when the people endorse it themsleves.
The part that causes these disputes is the bondage that taxation places upon
persons.
Yes. Note that secularism and pro-gay and pro-choice are
philosophies
and
they have no constitutional right to infringe on the anti-gay or
anti-choice agenda in the USA.
They do, however, have the right to fight such hateful agendas and
the
anti-gay and anti-choice agendas.
You see religion as being hateful towards persons while those who
adhere
to
religious teachings do not agree with your philosophy.
That is because they generally are hateful to such people.
That is your perspective.
No, this behavior can be observed.
Observed in the classroom where gay studies are taught with PUBLIC MONEY?
Are you in a classroom where gay studies are being taught, since you
are the poster child for the behavior we're discussing?
The First Amendment gives you no right to prohibit the peoples'
rights.
Since I am not trying to prohibit anyone's rights, I have nothing to
worry about.
You act as if the people are not entitled to the rights they are
guaranteed.
No, he's not.
Ridiculous.
SF isn't the nation's capitol.
Neither is Boston.
Neither is your town.
Is that hard for you to understand?
I understand it better than you, since I am the one that is promoting
people's rights, and you are trying to reduce and eliminate them.
*****.
You are only supporting treasonous anti-USA *****.
Ahh, here we go...
Derailing your taliban *****.
Yep, it's the Wentzky Consipracy Theory(tm)
They have the right to work to see that your philosophy and agenda
never
becomes strong enough to harm
people and prevent then from having and exercising their rights.
Flip side of that is that the people you contest have rights that
ensure
their behaviors.
No, they do not.
Wrong, again, militaristic, tax leech mythology boy.
Yep, you know Johnny's been defeated when he resorts to these
tactics...
How so?
Because you can't debate what's been said, you resort to calling
names.
people can only ensure their own behaviors.
So, why are you so reliant on an armed militia?
They cannot ensure and control the behaviors of others, especially when
the
reason for the control is because of the controller's religious
beliefs.
What control, militia taxboy?
Legislating religious beliefs.
Looks to me like the verbatim Constitution is much religious beliefs.
You also think all crimes have a statute of limitations. Obviously,
your beliefs are suspect.
Got a problem with that?
Other than it's nothing more than your opinion...
That is an imposition of one's religious beliefs onto
another, and is prohibited to the government by the Constitution.
The people are guaranteed the right to free exercise of religion.
They are also guaranteed that the government can not prohibit it.
And, the government can not support one religion over any other.
So, why do you freak out when a school has Christian teachings?
If they're voluntary, I don't care. If they REQUIRE a child to attend
those teachings, then I have an issue.
If the government is prohibtied from supporting one religion over another
and there is free exercise of religion, then how is disallowing Christian
teachings, if a school partakes in such, not, in effect, respecting any
establishment of religion above Christianity?
I'm not even sure what you're asking there as the question makes no
sense.
Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are LAW in the USA!
And that is what gives people the right to fight your agendas.
What groups are fighting Free Exercise of Religion or Freedom of
Speech?
The far religious right are fighting the Free Exercise of Religion,
which includes you.
What religion are you espousing, secrecy loon?
Either admit your religion or be cast out as a coward who hasn't the
courage
to admit his religion.
Without confessing your religion you are judged by default to be devoid
of
religion which grants unto you zero free exercise rights.
LOL!!! Where does it say that one must have a religion?
To have free exercise of religion you must have a religion.
So what, that doesn't mean you HAVE to have a religion. Anyone
without a religion isn't practicing one, so they aren't exercising
that right. So what? Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you
have to exercise it.
Oh let me guess, you'll pull some ***** out of your ***** like you did
when
claiming that all crimes have a statute of limitations?
Verbatim First Amendment doesn't give you free exercise of religion if you
have no religion.
Again, so what?? If I don't have a religion, I'm not practicing one
anyhow. Why do you care?
They include the RCC, Focus on Family, ACLJ, and
many others.
But, you have no religion, since you fail to confess it, which grants
unto
you ZERO free exercise rights.
So what? If you don't profess a religion, you don't need to exercise
one, do you?
Looks ok to me.
Just that you have no ability to prohibit anyone else's free exercise of
religion rights.
No kidding. Just like you don't have the right to force your religion
on those who don't want it.
Remember, it works both ways.
I do know that,
Do you?
but the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a right to
prohibit free exercise of religion,
Actually, the First Amendment prohibits the government from inhibiting
the free exercise of religion, and forbids it from favoring any
religion over any others. Anything passed by them must be secular in
nature, and treat all religious organizations equally.
It doesn't say secular.
What do you think a lack of religion is?
atheism.
Your use of words that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution
destroys
your platform.
Read for CONTEXT next time.
Read it verbatim.
The First Amendment does not prohibit the free exercise of religion
within a family.
Or anywhere else within the entire USA.
There is no restriction on free exercise of religion.
Unless of course, you a restricting someone else's free exercise of
religion.
A lack of religion would not qualify a person to be protected against those
who are engaged in free exercise of their religion, correct?
Which is exactly what would happen if the government
supported one religion and not another.
Prohibiting free exercise of religion is what the government is prohibted
from doing.
Since when would it be congress making a law that respects an establishment
of religion of a school declared themselves to be a Christian school, even
if it were a municipal institution?
A parent can forbid any religious practices that he
or she wants from any of their children until the child is 18 and/or
in their home or on their property.
What if a child, since you are against children being treated as chattel,
brings a suit against their atheistic or secularist parents in court?
It would get tossed out.
Why?
The child would have free exercise of religion rights, and the athiestic
parents would not have the ability to prohibit the child's free exercise fo
religion.
Are you saying the courts are here not to represent the people according to
the constitution?
See the danger to persons who treat their children criminally?
Not allowing your children to go to church isn't a crime, moron.
Would that be some sort of satanic bondage and discipline rountine you have
or would it be more of I need my money, honey, to raise you?
I can't dispute the fact that not giving your money away isn't stupid.
Let me guess, you going to claim to understand the law better than anyone
and claim it is...I can't wait.
You can do what you want to do as long as it doesn't violate others' rights,
imo.
either in the public sector or the private sector.
The First Amendment only affects the public sector, i.e. the
government.
*****.
Read it again.
It never says what you asserted.
For whom do you think it's written then?
The people of the USA.
Read it and see where it says 'the people'.
Who do you think it is written for?
The laws of the government prohibit religious
discrimination in most of the private sector.
Unless you work for TWA and have every sabbath off and then get
transferred
and then dismissed because they require you to work on the sabbath,
remember?
There are exceptions, such as very small businesses, overtly religious
organizations (such
as churches), and religious schools.
But, you think that gangsta tactics that go against the rights of the
people
are lawful.
Which is an egregious transgression of the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
12 Sep 2007 09:46:46 AM |
|
|
You're pro-choice, you *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
12 Sep 2007 11:57:21 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
You're pro-choice, you *****.
So am I. What are you going to do about it, besides act like the 46-year-old
infant you are?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
12 Sep 2007 09:55:39 AM |
|
|
On Sep 12, 10:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
You're pro-choice, you *****.
You know you've kicked Johnny's ***** when he snips everything and
resorts to ad hom attacks instead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
12 Sep 2007 10:50:42 AM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189608939.681702.40640@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 10:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
You're pro-choice, you *****.
You know you've kicked Johnny's ***** when he snips everything and
resorts to ad hom attacks instead.
You're saying you aren't pro-choice now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
12 Sep 2007 10:42:53 PM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189608939.681702.40640@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 10:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
You're pro-choice, you *****.
You know you've kicked Johnny's ***** when he snips everything and
resorts to ad hom attacks instead.
You're saying you aren't pro-choice now?
He said that you can be counted on to run away from the original discussion
when you engage in that tactic, because you know you're getting stomped. Grow
a spine and deal with reality for at least once in your life.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
13 Sep 2007 12:22:37 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7fb9qo2.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189608939.681702.40640@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 10:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
You're pro-choice, you *****.
You know you've kicked Johnny's ***** when he snips everything and
resorts to ad hom attacks instead.
You're saying you aren't pro-choice now?
He said that you can be counted on to run away from the original
discussion
when you engage in that tactic, because you know you're getting stomped.
You;'e still deluded into thinking that you didn't put yourself into your
current predicament that you arrived at by contesting me.
Grow a spine and deal with reality for at least once in your life.
Deal with the fact that you are an idiot?
That is your responsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
13 Sep 2007 09:07:15 AM |
|
|
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7fb9qo2.fsf@eris.io.com...
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189608939.681702.40640@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 10:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
You're pro-choice, you *****.
You know you've kicked Johnny's ***** when he snips everything and
resorts to ad hom attacks instead.
You're saying you aren't pro-choice now?
He said that you can be counted on to run away from the original
discussion
when you engage in that tactic, because you know you're getting stomped.
You;'e still deluded into thinking that you didn't put yourself into your
current predicament that you arrived at by contesting me.
Anyone can "contest" you. Get used to it.
Grow a spine and deal with reality for at least once in your life.
Deal with the fact that you are an idiot?
Let's see...I have no criminal record, but I'm an idiot in your opinion?
That is your responsibility.
I've handled mine far better than you'll ever be allowed to again.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
12 Sep 2007 08:25:25 PM |
|
|
On Sep 12, 11:50 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189608939.681702.40640@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 10:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
You're pro-choice, you *****.
You know you've kicked Johnny's ***** when he snips everything and
resorts to ad hom attacks instead.
You're saying you aren't pro-choice now?
And, you can tell when Johnny's insanity kicks in when he asks stupid,
irrelevant questions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
11 Sep 2007 09:16:16 PM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 1:54 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189531974.970929.142820@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189516937.933221.194370@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%...
Note that this had to do with a private, parochial school, not a
public school or venue. Different rules apply to private schools
because they do not receive public funds from the state.
How does any public school or venue have any right to violate the
peoples' First Amendment rights?
No idea what you are talking about here.
Public Schools aren't Congress.
Public schools are, however, a branch of the government since the
schools are paid for by taxes.
Public schools are operated by localities.
Which are funded by the local government.
Acting as if foreign districts have more authority than those who are paying
for their own schools is weirdo policy.
You actually did not understand what I said, which is not unusual.
Your claims have nothing to do with what I actually wrote. The public
schools get help from the state government, which is LOCAL to the
school. The schools are subject to STATE law and regulation. There
is no weirdo policy involved.
They are NOT forbidden from making codes that honor philopsophies that
conflict with your secularist philopsophy.
Actually, public schools are forbidden from promoting any religion.
Where in law are you reading that, verbatim?
The First Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and various case law. Since
the public schools are a branch of the government, they are subject to
most of the same restrictions that the government is.
They MUST support a "secularist philosophy" since they cannot support
a theological one.
*****.
They are prohibited from instituting secularsim as their philosophical
guide.
Since they cannot institute theocracy of any sort by law, all they are
left with is secularism. Those are really the only two chooses.
The government is FORBIDDEN from prohibitng Free Exercise of Religion.
They are also prohibited from promoting any religion. That means that
public schools MUST be secular in nature, since public schools are
technically and legally part of the government.
Such is the concept of freedom that honors the peoples' rights to be free
of policies they disagree with.
However, we are talking about a branch of the government,
The municipalities are ensured, by the Constitution, that their right are
not taken away by any governmental policy.
Municipalities are governments. Municipal governments, however,
cannot promote any religion or religious belief system. That is also
part of the Constitution.
and the government cannot impose any religious viewpoint on any of its
policies.
No one said the government was trying to impose a religious viewpoint.
That is what you are promoting, however.
The Constitutional framework ensures that the PEOPLE must be represented and
it also ensures that the government can NOT prohibit free exercise of
religion.
It also ensures that the government cannot FAVOR any religious beliefs
or belief system over any other. You keep forgetting that part.
Probably because it is so inconvenient to your oppressive agenda.
Yes. Note that secularism and pro-gay and pro-choice are philosophies
and they have no constitutional right to infringe on the anti-gay or
anti-choice agenda in the USA.
They do, however, have the right to fight such hateful agendas and the
anti-gay and anti-choice agendas.
You see religion as being hateful towards persons while those who adhere
to religious teachings do not agree with your philosophy.
That is because they generally are hateful to such people.
That is your perspective.
A perspective taken from the actions of many major religions,
including Christianity, throughout history, as well as their actions
today. Theocracies are generally the most oppressive governments in
existance.
The First Amendment gives you no right to prohibit the peoples' rights.
Since I am not trying to prohibit anyone's rights, I have nothing to
worry about.
You act as if the people are not entitled to the rights they are guaranteed.
No, I do not. You just do not understand those rights. I actually
try to uphold, reinforce, and expand those rights.
Is that hard for you to understand?
I understand it better than you, since I am the one that is promoting
people's rights, and you are trying to reduce and eliminate them.
*****.
I have repeatedly and continually shown that I do understand people's
rights far better than you do.
You are only supporting treasonous anti-USA *****.
Where am I doing that? I have been opposing your ***** and support
the rights of the people.
They have the right to work to see that your philosophy and agenda
never becomes strong enough to harm
people and prevent then from having and exercising their rights.
Flip side of that is that the people you contest have rights that ensure
their behaviors.
No, they do not.
Wrong, again, militaristic, tax leech mythology boy.
As usual, you are wrong on all counts about me. I am not a tax leech
like you, I am not militaristic, I am not mythological, and I am more
of a man that you will ever be.
And my following statements, which you broke up, explain why you are
wrong.
people can only ensure their own behaviors.
So, why are you so reliant on an armed militia?
I am not.
They cannot ensure and control the behaviors of others, especially when
the reason for the control is because of the controller's religious
beliefs.
What control, militia taxboy?
The control of legislating religious beliefs that have no secular
purpose, and thus forcing people that do not believe in that religion
or those beliefs to follow those beliefs. Beliefs that could
contradict their own beliefs.
That is an imposition of one's religious beliefs onto
another, and is prohibited to the government by the Constitution.
The people are guaranteed the right to free exwercise of religion.
The people are also guaranteed that they will not be forced to follow
anyone else's religious beliefs. That is part of what that phrase
means. The part that you wish to ignore.
They are also guaranteed that the government can not prohibit it.
They are also guaranteed that the government will protect their right
to worship freely, and not have people like you try to impose your
beliefs onto them.
Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are LAW in the USA!
And that is what gives people the right to fight your agendas.
What groups are fighting Free Exercise of Religion or Freedom of Speech?
The far religious right are fighting the Free Exercise of Religion,
which includes you.
What religion are you espousing, secrecy loon?
None. And I am neither a loon, nor promoting secrecy.
Either admit your religion or be cast out as a coward who hasn't the courage
to admit his religion.
Neither. My religious beliefs are none of your business and not
germane to the discussion. That is why I do not flout them or mention
them. Unlike you, I try to stick to the facts.
Without confessing your religion you are judged by default to be devoid of
religion which grants unto you zero free exercise rights.
You have no right to make such a decision. The law actual guarantees
that I have those free exercise rights no matter what your opinion is,
and that includes having the right NOT to have anyone else's religious
beliefs imposed on me and my being forced to follow those beliefs.
They include the RCC, Focus on Family, ACLJ, and
many others.
But, you have no religion, since you fail to confess it, which grants unto
you ZERO free exercise rights.
Except for the fact that the LAW and the CONSTITUTION and the COURTS
all say that I have full free exercise rights, and they all trump your
assertions.
Besides, I never claimed that I have no religious beliefs, I stated
that my beliefs are none of your business and not germane to the
discussion.
And your assertions have nothing to do with my statements.
Remember, it works both ways.
I do know that,
Do you?
but the First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a right to
prohibit free exercise of religion,
Actually, the First Amendment prohibits the government from inhibiting
the free exercise of religion, and forbids it from favoring any
religion over any others. Anything passed by them must be secular in
nature, and treat all religious organizations equally.
It doesn't say secular.
There is nothing left but secular. Theological has been completely
ruled out.
Your use of words that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution destroys
your platform.
My knowledge of the meaning of words, and your ignorance of them,
supports my platform. Especially when that platform are the facts.
The First Amendment does not prohibit the free exercise of religion
within a family.
Or anywhere else within the entire USA.
Except within the government and the workplace (with some clearly
defined exceptions) or public schools.
There is no restriction on free exercise of religion.
Yes, there is. You cannot force anyone else to follow you religion,
you cannot make laws that favor your religion, you cannot use the
government to promote your religion. You cannot force public school
students to study your religion. And so on. All of this assumes that
your religion includes the belief that you have to try to convert or
force as many people as possible to follow your religious beliefs.
A parent can forbid any religious practices that he
or she wants from any of their children until the child is 18 and/or
in their home or on their property.
What if a child, since you are against children being treated as chattel,
brings a suit against their atheistic or secularist parents in court?
I am against children being treated as chattel because they are not
chattel. No human being is. And that is one of the reasons that I am
pro-choice, because I am also against women being treated as chattel
as you anti-choice advocates wish to do.
And the child has the right to do so. There is plenty of precedence
for such cases, and the court is likely to look at the matter closely,
including the age of the child and the exact reason why he or she is
suing the parents. After all, you did not specify the reason for the
lawsuit, nor any surrounding details. Therefore, I can only answer
your strawman in a very general fashion.
See the danger to persons who treat their children criminally?
I have not been treating children criminally.
either in the public sector or the private sector.
The First Amendment only affects the public sector, i.e. the
government.
*****.
Read it again.
It never says what you asserted.
I have read it. The First Amendment states EXACTLY that with the
first word, "Congress". You just do not understand the First
Amendment or the Constitution. The Constitution was written to define
and restrict the government.
The laws of the government prohibit religious
discrimination in most of the private sector.
Unless you work for TWA and have every sabbath off and then get transferred
and then dismissed because they require you to work on the sabbath,
remember?
No. What specific case are you referring to. The details in this
type of thing are very, very important.
There are exceptions, such as very small businesses, overtly religious
organizations (such as churches), and religious schools.
But, you think that gangsta tactics that go against the rights of the people
are lawful.
No, I do not. That is why I oppose such tactics by you and much of
the far religious right/reich.
Which is an egregious transgression of the Constitution.
That is why I oppose such actions and agendas such as yours, because
they seek to ignore the Constitution and they go against the rights of
the people.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Christian academies can reject 'gays' |
12 Sep 2007 08:44:47 AM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189563376.775816.8760@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 1:54 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189531974.970929.142820@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1189516937.933221.194370@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
Christian academies can reject 'gays'
Lawyers say state 'cannot unreasonably interfere with philosophies'
http://www.christianbusinessdaily.com/ext_link_w_frames.php?url=http%...
Note that this had to do with a private, parochial school, not a
public school or venue. Different rules apply to private schools
because they do not receive public funds from the state.
How does any public school or venue have any right to violate the
peoples' First Amendment rights?
No idea what you are talking about here.
Public Schools aren't Congress.
Public schools are, however, a branch of the government since the
schools are paid for by taxes.
Public schools are operated by localities.
Which are funded by the local government.
which is funded by and obligated to represent the people
Acting as if foreign districts have more authority than those who are
paying
for their own schools is weirdo policy.
You actually did not understand what I said, which is not unusual.
No. You are insistent on prohibiting free exercise of religion.
That is a bigtime problem of yours.
Your claims have nothing to do with what I actually wrote. The public
schools get help from the state government, which is LOCAL to the
school. The schools are subject to STATE law and regulation. There
is no weirdo policy involved.
There is no method to prohibit free exercise of religion in the USA.
When will you realize that fact?
They are NOT forbidden from making codes that honor philopsophies that
conflict with your secularist philopsophy.
Actually, public schools are forbidden from promoting any religion.
Where in law are you reading that, verbatim?
The First Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and various case law.
Case law can not be relied upon when it contradicts the constitution.
The First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion to the people.
If you want to say that tax dollars can not be used to promote religion,
since that would NOT be free exercise, then I agree with that; but, taxing
the people is also contradictory to their 4th Amendment rights.
And, using taxation to promote anything at all would contradict the freedom
of speech guarantee.
What is with you bondage types who are so against the people being autnomous
with regard to their own possessions and effects?
When will you start to understand that government isn't entitled to steal
from the people for its agenda?
Since the public schools are a branch of the government, they are subject
to
most of the same restrictions that the government is.
Which means, even if you tax the people against their 4th amendment rights
they can still freely exercise religion in any public forum.
There is no method to prohibit their constitutional right to do so.
They MUST support a "secularist philosophy" since they cannot support
a theological one.
*****.
They are prohibited from instituting secularsim as their philosophical
guide.
Since they cannot institute theocracy of any sort by law, all they are
left with is secularism.
You are wrong, again.
Secularism is not entitled to be the supreme ruling philosophy.
The Constitution overrides your opinion.
Those are really the only two chooses.
Actually, the government is required to cease transgressing the rights of
the people.
Free Religious exercise has no limit on it in the USA.
The government is FORBIDDEN from prohibitng Free Exercise of Religion.
They are also prohibited from promoting any religion.
Is that why their is a National Cathedral in Washington, DC?
That means that public schools MUST be secular in nature,
*****.
You think that the taxes the people pay must be used to promote so much more
than the USA itself.
You are grossly in error.
since public schools are
technically and legally part of the government.
That is no excuse.
The Constitution does not allow the government to transgress the rights of
the people.
Such is the concept of freedom that honors the peoples' rights to be
free
of policies they disagree with.
However, we are talking about a branch of the government,
The municipalities are ensured, by the Constitution, that their rights
are
not taken away by any governmental policy.
Municipalities are governments. Municipal governments, however,
cannot promote any religion or religious belief system. That is also
part of the Constitution.
*****.
The prohibtion is on CONGRESS, and CONGRESS ONLY!
The Constitution does not prevent localities from instituting their
preferred religion.
and the government cannot impose any religious viewpoint on any of its
policies.
No one said the government was trying to impose a religious viewpoint.
That is what you are promoting, however.
Wrong.
I am taking the Constitution at its word; while you are trying to make up
excuses to prohibit free exercise of religion in the USA.
The Constitutional framework ensures that the PEOPLE must be represented
and
it also ensures that the government can NOT prohi | | | | | | |
