| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2005 01:12:45 AM |
| Object: |
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/05/news/californian/riverside/23_53_5611_4_05.txt
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross
By: North County Times
REDLANDS -- Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should restore
the cross to the Redlands seal. When the American Civil Liberties Union
threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated,
officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many
residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the religious
symbol will return.
If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.
"This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU
attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said it
is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it
reinstates the cross.
"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a message
of favor for one religion over others."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a cross
off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot,
resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the city
seal.
"What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to sue,
then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided on
its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone
conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a
ridiculous statement."
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
27 Nov 2005 06:11:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:34:58 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11o92qe757nqqaf@corp.supernews.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051120221956.27366B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Government has no business promoting religion
Government also has no business surpressing [sic] religion.
Not endorsing a particular variety of religion is not suppressing
religion.
It is if the voters want whatever it is that they voted for.
Not if you're talking about the USA. Here, the government does
not have the power to impose religion on the citizenry.
But you've never understood religious freedom.
Again, there is a difference in imposition and recognition. You are pissed
that there is recognition, but you are protected from imposition. These are
two very different principles. By denying recognition, you are violating --
potentially -- the religious freedom of those that you assert I do not
understand.
Nonsense, Jeffy
The only proscription against religious displays is
when GOVERNMENT does it, or when publically funded
venues are used to promote it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 10:28:50 PM |
|
|
<Knickkkers@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:reujn111ojcm69simvo182k1mbcmhpe8e6@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will
in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
Government has no business promoting religion
Nor preventing it,
And lawyers should be used for target practice.
Jim E
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 12:29:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
Government has no business promoting religion
Serious question, no ridicule explicit or implicit.
How is a cross in a county seal, which simply notes a significant point
in the county's history, promoting religion? I can understand and
sympathize with local tribes finding offense in the reference to the
Spanish missions, but that really shouldn't raise an establishment
clause question.
As a hypothetical case, suppose there were a town named Spartacus and
it's city seal included a cross to denote the death of the rebel slave,
in whose honor the town was named, would this cross constitute a
promotion of religion?
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
Does the city of La Rochelle need to change its name or would merely
removing the fleur de lis from its city emblem be enough? Francophobes
would have just as solid a reason to demand these changes as the
complainers in L.A. and San Diego did.
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
16 Nov 2005 06:42:06 PM |
|
|
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Mickey wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
16 Nov 2005 06:58:22 PM |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2005 16:42:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132188126.483520.242680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Mickey wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
You've made assertions like this before, but failed to support them with
evidence or case law.
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
16 Nov 2005 07:32:49 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:oclnn19e1dsvsoe53dv97sb47fji0aubfo@4ax.com...
On 16 Nov 2005 16:42:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132188126.483520.242680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Mickey wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
You've made assertions like this before, but failed to support them with
evidence or case law.
It is s acommon ploy of htose who want to impose religion on government.
*They assert that the 1oth means that the feds, who currently are the
biggest obstruction to their goals of turning hte US into a theocratic
countrry, prohibits fedeal courts form acting in these cases. They of course
ignore the 14th, which is hte underliying basis for giving the federal
courts jurisdiction.
Fred has even fallen for their ploy of citing Cantwell v Connecticut as the
hinge point for granting federal jusrisdiction. And he fell for the lie that
Catwell improperly ognored the 10th in its ruling. But the Cantwell' sued in
federal court under th 1th to overturn their conviction nder state law, and
therefore SCOTUS was not able --- even if they wanted to --- to exnd beyoind
the scope of the appeal.
The theocrats also seem to ignore the fact that before Cantwell the states
were, on average, far more restrictive and far more inconsistent in their
regulation of religious speach than the feds are today.
But that doesn;t seem to stop them from their repetition that the tenth is
being ignored while htey ignore the 14th, and their insistence that thye are
right and everyone else is wrong.
Larry
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
16 Nov 2005 09:23:53 PM |
|
|
<snipped for brevity>
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
You've made assertions like this before, but failed to support them with
evidence or case law.
It is s acommon ploy of htose who want to impose religion on government.
*They assert that the 1oth means that the feds, who currently are the
biggest obstruction to their goals of turning hte US into a theocratic
countrry, prohibits fedeal courts form acting in these cases. They of course
ignore the 14th, which is hte underliying basis for giving the federal
courts jurisdiction.
Fred has even fallen for their ploy of citing Cantwell v Connecticut as the
hinge point for granting federal jusrisdiction. And he fell for the lie that
Catwell improperly ognored the 10th in its ruling. But the Cantwell' sued in
federal court under th 1th to overturn their conviction nder state law, and
therefore SCOTUS was not able --- even if they wanted to --- to exnd beyoind
the scope of the appeal.
Again, the Cantwell Justices didn't even have the guts to mention the
10th Amendment; those cowards essentially unlawfully repealed the 10th
Amendment by implication. This makes the pivotal Cantwell opinion a
prime example of judges unlawfully legislating from the bench.
The theocrats also seem to ignore the fact that before Cantwell the states
were, on average, far more restrictive and far more inconsistent in their
regulation of religious speach than the feds are today.
But that doesn;t seem to stop them from their repetition that the tenth is
being ignored while htey ignore the 14th, and their insistence that thye are
right and everyone else is wrong.
You continue to ignore that the liberal media has nearly everybody's
attention fixated on the establishment clause where church-state
separation issues are concerned. Because of this mass tunnel-vision
hypnosis, people are being misled to think that the totality of what
the Constitution says about religion is summed up in the establishment
clause. As a consequence, most people are probably not even aware of
the 10th Amendment and therefore of the 10th Amendment's ramifications
with respect to enabling them to enjoy the full extent of their 1st
Amendment guaranteed freedom of religious expression.
<snipped for brevity>
Larry
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
17 Nov 2005 10:46:56 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132197833.235811.6820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snipped for brevity>
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists
have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in
front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
You've made assertions like this before, but failed to support them
with
evidence or case law.
It is s acommon ploy of htose who want to impose religion on government.
*They assert that the 1oth means that the feds, who currently are the
biggest obstruction to their goals of turning hte US into a theocratic
countrry, prohibits fedeal courts form acting in these cases. They of
course
ignore the 14th, which is hte underliying basis for giving the federal
courts jurisdiction.
Fred has even fallen for their ploy of citing Cantwell v Connecticut as
the
hinge point for granting federal jusrisdiction. And he fell for the lie
that
Catwell improperly ognored the 10th in its ruling. But the Cantwell'
sued in
federal court under th 1th to overturn their conviction nder state law,
and
therefore SCOTUS was not able --- even if they wanted to --- to exnd
beyoind
the scope of the appeal.
Again, the Cantwell Justices didn't even have the guts to mention the
10th Amendment; those cowards essentially unlawfully repealed the 10th
Amendment by implication. This makes the pivotal Cantwell opinion a
prime example of judges unlawfully legislating from the bench.
Again, your ignorance of the appeals process is profound.
In an appeal the presiding justices or judges may _only_ address the facts
and law presented to them by the repsondents. For a great education watch
the C-SPAN broadcasts of the appeals on Congress' abortion law.
That is, if a plaintiff files an appeal --- rightly or wrongly --- citing
only a precedent that actually does not apply then the justices cannot
correct the defendants and bring a proper precedent into the argument. The
appeals proces can ONLY decide on the facts presented to them by the
plaintiffs and defendants.
In the Cantwell case, the defendants chose to appeal beased ont he 14th
amendment, not the 10th. They won on the 14th, it is certain that they would
have lost on the 10th. Appealing based on the 10th would have upheld their
convictions because that wouldhave allowed Connecticut to do what it
wanted.
You also seem to want to ignore the fact that later amendments supercede
previous amndements, like the 21st overriding hte 18th (prohibition), or the
17th overriding the body of the constitution (elections for congress). That
is what an amendment is.
The 14th specifically grants the federal judiciary the right to override the
states in matters of the US constitution. Cantwell was exactly that --- the
state unconsitutionally restricted the Cantwell's 1st amendment rights.
The theocrats also seem to ignore the fact that before Cantwell the
states
were, on average, far more restrictive and far more inconsistent in
their
regulation of religious speach than the feds are today.
But that doesn;t seem to stop them from their repetition that the tenth
is
being ignored while htey ignore the 14th, and their insistence that thye
are
right and everyone else is wrong.
You continue to ignore that the liberal media has nearly everybody's
attention fixated on the establishment clause where church-state
separation issues are concerned. Because of this mass tunnel-vision
hypnosis, people are being misled to think that the totality of what
the Constitution says about religion is summed up in the establishment
clause. As a consequence, most people are probably not even aware of
the 10th Amendment and therefore of the 10th Amendment's ramifications
with respect to enabling them to enjoy the full extent of their 1st
Amendment guaranteed freedom of religious expression.
You continue to ignroe the fact that SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled against
you. What the media reports is irrelevant, what the Court rules is all that
matters.
Again, you want to ignore the fact that the 14th in part overrides the 10th.
And let me remind you. Cantwel was a _victory_ for religious speech. You
seem to have an unfounded faith that the states will be more amenable to
your abuses. Some may --- mine certainly. But history show that most will
not, and the debate will be bruising.
Larry
<snipped for brevity>
Larry
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
17 Nov 2005 09:16:10 AM |
|
|
On 16 Nov 2005 19:23:53 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Again, the Cantwell Justices didn't even have the guts to mention the
10th Amendment
Freddie loon
The ruling of the court supported the notion that the ordinance did
NOT have the right to shut Cantwell down
If the court would have sustained the law, your position would be
logical
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
17 Nov 2005 11:28:06 AM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 16:42:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132188126.483520.242680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Mickey wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
You've made assertions like this before, but failed to support them with
evidence or case law.
Just like the outcome-driven Court, your anti-religious expression
agenda cannot afford for my assertions to be true in the first place.
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
17 Nov 2005 01:17:30 PM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 09:28:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132248486.053765.79190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 16:42:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132188126.483520.242680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Mickey wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
You've made assertions like this before, but failed to support them with
evidence or case law.
Just like the outcome-driven Court, your anti-religious expression
agenda cannot afford for my assertions to be true in the first place.
This appears to be an admission that your assertions are not supported
by any evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
17 Nov 2005 09:17:26 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 09:28:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132248486.053765.79190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 16:42:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132188126.483520.242680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Mickey wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
You've made assertions like this before, but failed to support them with
evidence or case law.
Just like the outcome-driven Court, your anti-religious expression
agenda cannot afford for my assertions to be true in the first place.
This appears to be an admission that your assertions are not supported
by any evidence.
I've been referencing reasonable evidence; 1st, 10th, 14th Amendments,
Everson, Opelika, Cantwell opinions, Jefferson and others. The problem
is that you would probably rather ignore any evidence anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
17 Nov 2005 09:33:07 PM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 19:17:26 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132283846.760932.117910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 09:28:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132248486.053765.79190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 16:42:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132188126.483520.242680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Mickey wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
You've made assertions like this before, but failed to support them with
evidence or case law.
Just like the outcome-driven Court, your anti-religious expression
agenda cannot afford for my assertions to be true in the first place.
This appears to be an admission that your assertions are not supported
by any evidence.
I've been referencing reasonable evidence; 1st, 10th, 14th Amendments,
Everson, Opelika, Cantwell opinions, Jefferson and others. The problem
is that you would probably rather ignore any evidence anyway.
Nowhere do any of them say that the Court is outcome driven or
anti-religious expression. Could you support those claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
17 Nov 2005 11:47:30 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 19:17:26 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132283846.760932.117910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 09:28:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132248486.053765.79190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 16:42:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132188126.483520.242680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Mickey wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
You've made assertions like this before, but failed to support them with
evidence or case law.
Just like the outcome-driven Court, your anti-religious expression
agenda cannot afford for my assertions to be true in the first place.
This appears to be an admission that your assertions are not supported
by any evidence.
I've been referencing reasonable evidence; 1st, 10th, 14th Amendments,
Everson, Opelika, Cantwell opinions, Jefferson and others. The problem
is that you would probably rather ignore any evidence anyway.
Nowhere do any of them say that the Court is outcome driven or
anti-religious expression. Could you support those claims.
With respect to outcome-driven judges, Jefferson warned about judges
who legislate from the bench:
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Also consider that Wallace v. Jaffree not only shows that the Court was
willing to weaken our freedom of speech by limiting religious
expression:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
Note that Wallace v. Jaffree also fails the 10th Amendment test.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
18 Nov 2005 04:04:07 PM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 21:47:30 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
With respect to outcome-driven judges, Jefferson warned about judges
who legislate from the bench:
What "jefferson said" has no binding legal authority, Freddie.
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Also consider that Wallace v. Jaffree not only shows that the Court was
willing to weaken our freedom of speech by limiting religious
expression:
Freddie
The limitation is on GOVERNMENT---not individuals
You're one of the most dense fuckwits this NG has ever seen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "2080 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
18 Nov 2005 05:28:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:04:07 -0700, wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 21:47:30 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
With respect to outcome-driven judges, Jefferson warned about judges
who legislate from the bench:
What "jefferson said" has no binding legal authority, Freddie.
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Also consider that Wallace v. Jaffree not only shows that the Court was
willing to weaken our freedom of speech by limiting religious
expression:
Freddie
The limitation is on GOVERNMENT---not individuals
You're one of the most dense fuckwits this NG has ever seen.
Since we're talking about Jefferson, it's worth noting that a much
younger Jefferson toyed with the idea of not allowing a bill to become
law until judges had vetted it for constitutionality. It wouldn't
have been a good idea, since it fails to allow for the law of
unintended consequences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
18 Nov 2005 06:39:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:28:02 -0800, 2080 Dead
<zepp#22112080dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:04:07 -0700, wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 21:47:30 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
With respect to outcome-driven judges, Jefferson warned about judges
who legislate from the bench:
What "jefferson said" has no binding legal authority, Freddie.
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Also consider that Wallace v. Jaffree not only shows that the Court was
willing to weaken our freedom of speech by limiting religious
expression:
Freddie
The limitation is on GOVERNMENT---not individuals
You're one of the most dense fuckwits this NG has ever seen.
Since we're talking about Jefferson, it's worth noting that a much
younger Jefferson toyed with the idea of not allowing a bill to become
law until judges had vetted it for constitutionality. It wouldn't
have been a good idea, since it fails to allow for the law of
unintended consequences.
Giving Freddie that kind of information will set him off on another
Judge Moore diatribe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "2080 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
18 Nov 2005 06:44:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:39:52 -0700, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:28:02 -0800, 2080 Dead
<zepp#22112080dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:04:07 -0700, wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 21:47:30 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
With respect to outcome-driven judges, Jefferson warned about judges
who legislate from the bench:
What "jefferson said" has no binding legal authority, Freddie.
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Also consider that Wallace v. Jaffree not only shows that the Court was
willing to weaken our freedom of speech by limiting religious
expression:
Freddie
The limitation is on GOVERNMENT---not individuals
You're one of the most dense fuckwits this NG has ever seen.
Since we're talking about Jefferson, it's worth noting that a much
younger Jefferson toyed with the idea of not allowing a bill to become
law until judges had vetted it for constitutionality. It wouldn't
have been a good idea, since it fails to allow for the law of
unintended consequences.
Giving Freddie that kind of information will set him off on another
Judge Moore diatribe.
So noting that Jefferson also thought that all real property should
revert to the government for reallocation upon the death of the land
owner wouldn't do much for Freddy's mental equilibrium either, I
suppose.
Tch. They just don't make right wingers like they useta...
.
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
18 Nov 2005 07:13:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:44:42 -0800, 2080 Dead
<zepp#22112080dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:39:52 -0700, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:28:02 -0800, 2080 Dead
<zepp#22112080dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:04:07 -0700, wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 21:47:30 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
With respect to outcome-driven judges, Jefferson warned about judges
who legislate from the bench:
What "jefferson said" has no binding legal authority, Freddie.
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Also consider that Wallace v. Jaffree not only shows that the Court was
willing to weaken our freedom of speech by limiting religious
expression:
Freddie
The limitation is on GOVERNMENT---not individuals
You're one of the most dense fuckwits this NG has ever seen.
Since we're talking about Jefferson, it's worth noting that a much
younger Jefferson toyed with the idea of not allowing a bill to become
law until judges had vetted it for constitutionality. It wouldn't
have been a good idea, since it fails to allow for the law of
unintended consequences.
Giving Freddie that kind of information will set him off on another
Judge Moore diatribe.
So noting that Jefferson also thought that all real property should
revert to the government for reallocation upon the death of the land
owner wouldn't do much for Freddy's mental equilibrium either, I
suppose.
That's total *****, of course... Jefferson believed no such thing.
The fact is that he believed that a person should be able to pass on
his wealth to anyone he designated without *any* government
interference... Jamieson has been passing out that lie for a long
time and I've corrected him on it many times.... But that's just
typical for the fat lying Jamieson.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
18 Nov 2005 06:58:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:39:52 -0700, in alt.atheism
wrote in
<k1tsn1p1edkp9lv2n2al4g399fn51fo4lc@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:28:02 -0800, 2080 Dead
<zepp#22112080dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:04:07 -0700, wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 21:47:30 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
With respect to outcome-driven judges, Jefferson warned about judges
who legislate from the bench:
What "jefferson said" has no binding legal authority, Freddie.
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Also consider that Wallace v. Jaffree not only shows that the Court was
willing to weaken our freedom of speech by limiting religious
expression:
Freddie
The limitation is on GOVERNMENT---not individuals
You're one of the most dense fuckwits this NG has ever seen.
Since we're talking about Jefferson, it's worth noting that a much
younger Jefferson toyed with the idea of not allowing a bill to become
law until judges had vetted it for constitutionality. It wouldn't
have been a good idea, since it fails to allow for the law of
unintended consequences.
Giving Freddie that kind of information will set him off on another
Judge Moore diatribe.
Is there anyone who thinks that Judge Moore is anything but a pompous,
ignorant windbag who betrayed his oath of office?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
18 Nov 2005 09:28:53 AM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 21:47:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132292850.400182.288010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 19:17:26 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132283846.760932.117910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 17 Nov 2005 09:28:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132248486.053765.79190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 16:42:06 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132188126.483520.242680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Mickey wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
You've hit the nail on the head! What separationists and atheists have
long discovered is that the way to unconstitutionally attack 1st
Amendment protected religious expression is to drag Christians in front
of activist judges who are willing to unlawfully legislate
anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench.
Sadly, the reason that activist judges are getting away with
legislating from the bench is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and are consequently oblivious when
outcome-driven activist judges bypass constitutional checks and
balances.
You've made assertions like this before, but failed to support them with
evidence or case law.
Just like the outcome-driven Court, your anti-religious expression
agenda cannot afford for my assertions to be true in the first place.
This appears to be an admission that your assertions are not supported
by any evidence.
I've been referencing reasonable evidence; 1st, 10th, 14th Amendments,
Everson, Opelika, Cantwell opinions, Jefferson and others. The problem
is that you would probably rather ignore any evidence anyway.
Nowhere do any of them say that the Court is outcome driven or
anti-religious expression. Could you support those claims.
With respect to outcome-driven judges, Jefferson warned about judges
who legislate from the bench:
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Also consider that Wallace v. Jaffree not only shows that the Court was
willing to weaken our freedom of speech by limiting religious
expression:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
Note that Wallace v. Jaffree also fails the 10th Amendment test.
It was Alabama's law, which had been found by the trier of fact to be
intended to be religious, that had failed to pass constitutional muster.
When do you approve of using the 14th Amendment? I take it that you are
not saying that any case that uses the 14th Amendment to keep states
from trampling the freedoms of citizens will qualify as legislating from
the bench.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
18 Nov 2005 10:18:08 PM |
|
|
<snipped for brevity>
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
Note that Wallace v. Jaffree also fails the 10th Amendment test.
It was Alabama's law, which had been found by the trier of fact to be
intended to be religious, that had failed to pass constitutional muster.
When do you approve of using the 14th Amendment? I take it that you are
not saying that any case that uses the 14th Amendment to keep states
from trampling the freedoms of citizens will qualify as legislating from
the bench.
Again, separationists and atheists ignore that before the Civil War
many States had successfully balanced their 10th protected sovereign
powers with personal federal rights on their own initiative without
needing the 14th make it mandatory for them to do so. So the illogical
presumption of separationists and atheists that the very existance of
government power to legislate religion somehow abridges their personal
federal rights has no basis in fact.
Regarding my perspective on the use of the 14th, how often have you
seen the following statement from me?:
The States have the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead
non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of
evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
I won't deny the 14th dramatically positively changed the lives of many
people who were living in States that evidently regarded personal
federal rights as an option. So, unfortunately, the 14th was a needed
amendment. And the 14th would have worked just fine as per this note
from an honest Justice in the Opelika opinion:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
Justices are expected to simply balance the 10th protected sovereign
powers of the States with the 14th protected personal federal rights.
The problem is that widespread constitutional ignorance permitted
unconstitutional absolute separationism to get its foot into the door
when activist Justices evidently gambled that they could use the 14th
as an excuse to essentially unlawfully repeal the 10th protected
sovereign powers of the States. Again, Cantwell essentially repealed
the 10th by implication; the coward Justices defined the sovereign
powers, or lack thereof, of the States in terms of the 1st and 14th and
simply ignored the 10th.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
19 Nov 2005 08:31:07 AM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2005 20:18:08 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Again, separationists and atheists ignore that before the Civil War
many States had successfully balanced their 10th protected sovereign
powers with personal federal rights on their own initiative without
needing the 14th make it mandatory for them to do so.
Yeah, freddie
That would account for the slaves and a century of Jim Crow laws.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 01:02:57 PM |
|
|
"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tOpef.20071$Zv5.18741@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like
L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU
will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
Government has no business promoting religion
Serious question, no ridicule explicit or implicit.
How is a cross in a county seal, which simply notes a significant point
in the county's history, promoting religion? I can understand and
sympathize with local tribes finding offense in the reference to the
Spanish missions, but that really shouldn't raise an establishment
clause question.
The problem is that a cross is more than an historic symbol. ANd most
especially to those who do not know or recognize the historical refernce.
If _only_ history is the motivation for placing a symbol on the seal then
other icons are available, some with a clearer historical reference. Some
could even include a cross as part of the icon, such as a picture of a
mission. It only takes a little thought and a little intellectual honesty.
But a picture of a cosss by itsel, or even a cross on a mountain top, is
rarely seen to be a historical refernce. Far more people tink of it as a
religious reference. And anyone capable of intellectual honesty has to admit
that, otherwise religious groups would not be so incensed. _Their_ aim is
not hostorical, but religious.
As a hypothetical case, suppose there were a town named Spartacus and
it's city seal included a cross to denote the death of the rebel slave,
in whose honor the town was named, would this cross constitute a
promotion of religion?
Why a cross? Whay not a headstone, shield, chariot, bust, sword, or battle
scne?
A cross, in your xample., is such a minor reference to history for a person
not noted for his religious side.
AS I said, if you would be intellectually honst you would admit that you are
trying to excusa religious icon, not display a historical reference.
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
_Of course_ you see no difference. You are rooted in your religion,
incapable of being intellectually honest enough to step back fromit and see
the world from another;s point of view.
But I can only imagine your indignation and vitriol shoudl a town put, say,
a star of david, a quran, shinto shrine, wiccan goddess, buddha, or icon of
another religion as a "historical reference" to the town's history r an
allusion to a famous citizen.
larry
Does the city of La Rochelle need to change its name or would merely
removing the fleur de lis from its city emblem be enough? Francophobes
would have just as solid a reason to demand these changes as the
complainers in L.A. and San Diego did.
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 01:15:25 PM |
|
|
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> writes:
"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tOpef.20071$Zv5.18741@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like
L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU
will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
Government has no business promoting religion
Serious question, no ridicule explicit or implicit.
How is a cross in a county seal, which simply notes a significant point
in the county's history, promoting religion? I can understand and
sympathize with local tribes finding offense in the reference to the
Spanish missions, but that really shouldn't raise an establishment
clause question.
The problem is that a cross is more than an historic symbol. ANd most
especially to those who do not know or recognize the historical refernce.
If _only_ history is the motivation for placing a symbol on the seal then
other icons are available, some with a clearer historical reference. Some
could even include a cross as part of the icon, such as a picture of a
mission. It only takes a little thought and a little intellectual honesty.
But a picture of a cosss by itsel, or even a cross on a mountain top, is
rarely seen to be a historical refernce. Far more people tink of it as a
religious reference. And anyone capable of intellectual honesty has to admit
that, otherwise religious groups would not be so incensed. _Their_ aim is
not hostorical, but religious.
I expect the Bush Administration to expand torture until they
bring back public crucifixions, just so they'll have an excuse
to nail up dozens of middle-eastern men on crosses on government
property and defend it on the grounds that it isn't promoting
religion - it's just torture!
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 01:46:38 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tOpef.20071$Zv5.18741@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like
L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU
will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
Government has no business promoting religion
Serious question, no ridicule explicit or implicit.
How is a cross in a county seal, which simply notes a significant point
in the county's history, promoting religion? I can understand and
sympathize with local tribes finding offense in the reference to the
Spanish missions, but that really shouldn't raise an establishment
clause question.
The problem is that a cross is more than an historic symbol. ANd most
especially to those who do not know or recognize the historical refernce.
If _only_ history is the motivation for placing a symbol on the seal then
other icons are available, some with a clearer historical reference. Some
could even include a cross as part of the icon, such as a picture of a
mission. It only takes a little thought and a little intellectual honesty.
But a picture of a cosss by itsel, or even a cross on a mountain top, is
rarely seen to be a historical refernce. Far more people tink of it as a
religious reference. And anyone capable of intellectual honesty has to admit
that, otherwise religious groups would not be so incensed. _Their_ aim is
not hostorical, but religious.
Religious groups are incensed because they see the removal of the cross
as another attack against the religious in this country. In effect, the
attackers of the city emblem imbued it with religious significance it
never had before by their attack. I daresay most residents of L.A. or
S.D. never knew or cared there was a cross on their city or county seal.
As a hypothetical case, suppose there were a town named Spartacus and
it's city seal included a cross to denote the death of the rebel slave,
in whose honor the town was named, would this cross constitute a
promotion of religion?
Why a cross? Whay not a headstone, shield, chariot, bust, sword, or battle
scne?
Because Spartacus died on one. By the way, Spartacus lived BCE, so his
religion is irrelevant.
A cross, in your xample., is such a minor reference to history for a person
not noted for his religious side.
AS I said, if you would be intellectually honst you would admit that you are
trying to excusa religious icon, not display a historical reference.
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
_Of course_ you see no difference. You are rooted in your religion,
incapable of being intellectually honest enough to step back fromit and see
the world from another;s point of view.
I'm not a "Christian," you putz. I'm simply arguing for a little tolerance.
In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
But I can only imagine your indignation and vitriol shoudl a town put, say,
a star of david, a quran, shinto shrine, wiccan goddess, buddha, or icon of
another religion as a "historical reference" to the town's history r an
allusion to a famous citizen.
Not the tiniest problem in the world. Now if you were to honor Dr.
Mengele, Chief Justice Taney, or Gary Gilmore, you'd probably ***** me
off, but I'm not sure I'd think I had any recourse in the courts.
larry
Does the city of La Rochelle need to change its name or would merely
removing the fleur de lis from its city emblem be enough? Francophobes
would have just as solid a reason to demand these changes as the
complainers in L.A. and San Diego did.
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 07:16:43 PM |
|
|
"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yWqef.20636$Zv5.17157@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tOpef.20071$Zv5.18741@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like
L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's
seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic
Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU
will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
Government has no business promoting religion
Serious question, no ridicule explicit or implicit.
How is a cross in a county seal, which simply notes a significant point
in the county's history, promoting religion? I can understand and
sympathize with local tribes finding offense in the reference to the
Spanish missions, but that really shouldn't raise an establishment
clause question.
The problem is that a cross is more than an historic symbol. ANd most
especially to those who do not know or recognize the historical
refernce.
If _only_ history is the motivation for placing a symbol on the seal
then
other icons are available, some with a clearer historical reference.
Some
could even include a cross as part of the icon, such as a picture of a
mission. It only takes a little thought and a little intellectual
honesty.
But a picture of a cosss by itsel, or even a cross on a mountain top, is
rarely seen to be a historical refernce. Far more people tink of it as a
religious reference. And anyone capable of intellectual honesty has to
admit
that, otherwise religious groups would not be so incensed. _Their_ aim
is
not hostorical, but religious.
Religious groups are incensed because they see the removal of the cross
as another attack against the religious in this country. In effect, the
attackers of the city emblem imbued it with religious significance it
never had before by their attack. I daresay most residents of L.A. or
S.D. never knew or cared there was a cross on their city or county seal.
No no no no no. If it had no religious significance then religious groups
would not be threatened. People do not rise up in anger over the
"mistreatment",say, a thanksgiving turkey, arbor day elm, or even the
elimination of pictures of washington and lincoln.
As a hypothetical case, suppose there were a town named Spartacus and
it's city seal included a cross to denote the death of the rebel slave,
in whose honor the town was named, would this cross constitute a
promotion of religion?
Why a cross? Whay not a headstone, shield, chariot, bust, sword, or
battle
scne?
Because Spartacus died on one. By the way, Spartacus lived BCE, so his
religion is irrelevant.
So why are you promoting a christian symbol that represents an tiny portion
of his life? Again, why not something more representative of his
achievements?
A cross, in your xample., is such a minor reference to history for a
person
not noted for his religious side.
AS I said, if you would be intellectually honst you would admit that you
are
trying to excusa religious icon, not display a historical reference.
I see no distinction except that some folk are inclined to work up a
lather and be offended by things that are utterly insignificant or in
this case, I believe, utterly irrelevant. Just because someone finds
something objectionable and can then find a slim link to something
vaguely religious shouldn't automatically raise the question of the
promotion of religion. E.g., the following question.
_Of course_ you see no difference. You are rooted in your religion,
incapable of being intellectually honest enough to step back fromit and
see
the world from another;s point of view.
I'm not a "Christian," you putz. I'm simply arguing for a little
tolerance.
I do not believe you.
In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
You are, in fact,arguing for the opposite of this. You are arguing for
intolerence and subjugation of the minority.
But I can only imagine your indignation and vitriol shoudl a town put,
say,
a star of david, a quran, shinto shrine, wiccan goddess, buddha, or icon
of
another religion as a "historical reference" to the town's history r an
allusion to a famous citizen.
Not the tiniest problem in the world. Now if you were to honor Dr.
Mengele, Chief Justice Taney, or Gary Gilmore, you'd probably ***** me
off, but I'm not sure I'd think I had any recourse in the courts.
Again, I do not believe you.
Larry
larry
Does the city of La Rochelle need to change its name or would merely
removing the fleur de lis from its city emblem be enough? Francophobes
would have just as solid a reason to demand these changes as the
complainers in L.A. and San Diego did.
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 09:02:54 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yWqef.20636$Zv5.17157@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tOpef.20071$Zv5.18741@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like
L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's
seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic
Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU
will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
Government has no business promoting religion
Serious question, no ridicule explicit or implicit.
How is a cross in a county seal, which simply notes a significant point
in the county's history, promoting religion? I can understand and
sympathize with local tribes finding offense in the reference to the
Spanish missions, but that really shouldn't raise an establishment
clause question.
The problem is that a cross is more than an historic symbol. ANd most
especially to those who do not know or recognize the historical
refernce.
If _only_ history is the motivation for placing a symbol on the seal
then
other icons are available, some with a clearer historical reference.
Some
could even include a cross as part of the icon, such as a picture of a
mission. It only takes a little thought and a little intellectual
honesty.
| | | | | |
