| 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: "Ron Young" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 07:24:48 AM |
|
|
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this country.
Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and 95 of them will
say Jesus Christ.
"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.
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: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 11:57:59 AM |
|
|
Ron Young wrote:
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this country.
Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and 95 of them will
say Jesus Christ.
Not responsive or to the point, like a lot of the noise masquerading as
argument around here.
The relative public notoriety of a symbol has no bearing. In effect,
you're saying public display of an obscure symbol might be okay. The
question is the symbol's promotional or explicitly exclusionary power
where it is displayed. In the latter case, it is not sufficient for
someone to simply say that "it makes me feel excluded. (see Justice
O'Connors' concurrence in Elk Grove v Newdow.)
By your logic, the exterior of every church, mosque, temple, or other
well known religious meeting place would need to be devoid of any common
religious symbol to not be guilty of symbolic speech hostile to
atheists, i.e., hate speech, which while not yet illegal in this country
can have legal repercussions (libel, slander, etc.).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Young" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
17 Nov 2005 07:06:07 AM |
|
|
I can have a cross in my yard and any private building can have a cross on
it. A government building can't.
"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:HqKef.13686$7h7.2248@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Ron Young wrote:
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this country.
Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and 95 of them
will say Jesus Christ.
Not responsive or to the point, like a lot of the noise masquerading as
argument around here.
The relative public notoriety of a symbol has no bearing. In effect,
you're saying public display of an obscure symbol might be okay. The
question is the symbol's promotional or explicitly exclusionary power
where it is displayed. In the latter case, it is not sufficient for
someone to simply say that "it makes me feel excluded. (see Justice
O'Connors' concurrence in Elk Grove v Newdow.)
By your logic, the exterior of every church, mosque, temple, or other well
known religious meeting place would need to be devoid of any common
religious symbol to not be guilty of symbolic speech hostile to atheists,
i.e., hate speech, which while not yet illegal in this country can have
legal repercussions (libel, slander, etc.).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
17 Nov 2005 11:18:54 AM |
|
|
Ron Young wrote:
I can have a cross in my yard and any private building can have a cross on
it. A government building can't.
Aren't any number of government buildings in Washington D.C. festooned
with "religious" symbols, e.g., 10 commandments? Arlington, while not a
building, per se, is covered with crosses (and other relig. symbols),
and the National Cathedral, while not receiving any govt. funds, was
chartered in 1893 by the Congress. I'm sure folks can find plenty of
other examples of govt. buildings sporting religious symbols. The most
recent SCOTUS cases focused on context as a determiner of promotional
value of a display.
"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:HqKef.13686$7h7.2248@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Ron Young wrote:
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this country.
Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and 95 of them
will say Jesus Christ.
Not responsive or to the point, like a lot of the noise masquerading as
argument around here.
The relative public notoriety of a symbol has no bearing. In effect,
you're saying public display of an obscure symbol might be okay. The
question is the symbol's promotional or explicitly exclusionary power
where it is displayed. In the latter case, it is not sufficient for
someone to simply say that "it makes me feel excluded. (see Justice
O'Connors' concurrence in Elk Grove v Newdow.)
By your logic, the exterior of every church, mosque, temple, or other well
known religious meeting place would need to be devoid of any common
religious symbol to not be guilty of symbolic speech hostile to atheists,
i.e., hate speech, which while not yet illegal in this country can have
legal repercussions (libel, slander, etc.).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 12:20:29 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron Young wrote:
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this country.
Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and 95 of them will
say Jesus Christ.
Not responsive or to the point, like a lot of the noise masquerading as
argument around here.
The relative public notoriety of a symbol has no bearing.
Try to get a Sanskrit good luck symbol painted on the town
watertower, then.
In effect,
you're saying public display of an obscure symbol might be okay. The
question is the symbol's promotional or explicitly exclusionary power
where it is displayed. In the latter case, it is not sufficient for
someone to simply say that "it makes me feel excluded. (see Justice
O'Connors' concurrence in Elk Grove v Newdow.)
By your logic, the exterior of every church, mosque, temple, or other
well known religious meeting place would need to be devoid of any common
religious symbol to not be guilty of symbolic speech hostile to
atheists, i.e., hate speech, which while not yet illegal in this country
can have legal repercussions (libel, slander, etc.).
You are dishonestly comparing symbols erected on public property
with symbols erected on private property.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 01:06:07 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron Young wrote:
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this country.
Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and 95 of them will
say Jesus Christ.
Not responsive or to the point, like a lot of the noise masquerading as
argument around here.
The relative public notoriety of a symbol has no bearing.
Try to get a Sanskrit good luck symbol painted on the town
watertower, then.
You mean a swastika? Bad manners certainly, but do we have a lawyer or
judge in the crowd to tell us if a Hindu dominated city council, in a
city bound and determined to collect on the all its fire insurance
policies, would be legally barred from putting this symbol along with
the words "Good Luck" on their water tower?
Ridiculous situation, serious question.
In effect,
you're saying public display of an obscure symbol might be okay. The
question is the symbol's promotional or explicitly exclusionary power
where it is displayed. In the latter case, it is not sufficient for
someone to simply say that "it makes me feel excluded. (see Justice
O'Connors' concurrence in Elk Grove v Newdow.)
By your logic, the exterior of every church, mosque, temple, or other
well known religious meeting place would need to be devoid of any common
religious symbol to not be guilty of symbolic speech hostile to
atheists, i.e., hate speech, which while not yet illegal in this country
can have legal repercussions (libel, slander, etc.).
You are dishonestly comparing symbols erected on public property
with symbols erected on private property.
No, I'm extending the logic underlying your statement to a different
legal situation. Nothing dishonest about it all. I didn't question
whether the religious institutions had the right to display religious
symbols, but whether the emotional reaction of nonbeliever or
unbelievers to those symbols had any real legal meaning unless the
symbols were used principally to inflame.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 01:13:43 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron Young wrote:
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this country.
Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and 95 of them will
say Jesus Christ.
Not responsive or to the point, like a lot of the noise masquerading as
argument around here.
The relative public notoriety of a symbol has no bearing.
Try to get a Sanskrit good luck symbol painted on the town
watertower, then.
You mean a swastika? Bad manners certainly, but do we have a lawyer or
judge in the crowd to tell us if a Hindu dominated city council, in a
city bound and determined to collect on the all its fire insurance
policies, would be legally barred from putting this symbol along with
the words "Good Luck" on their water tower?
Ridiculous situation, serious question.
But I thought you claimed it had NO bearing.
In effect,
you're saying public display of an obscure symbol might be okay. The
question is the symbol's promotional or explicitly exclusionary power
where it is displayed. In the latter case, it is not sufficient for
someone to simply say that "it makes me feel excluded. (see Justice
O'Connors' concurrence in Elk Grove v Newdow.)
By your logic, the exterior of every church, mosque, temple, or other
well known religious meeting place would need to be devoid of any common
religious symbol to not be guilty of symbolic speech hostile to
atheists, i.e., hate speech, which while not yet illegal in this country
can have legal repercussions (libel, slander, etc.).
You are dishonestly comparing symbols erected on public property
with symbols erected on private property.
No, I'm extending the logic underlying your statement to a different
legal situation. Nothing dishonest about it all.
It's completely dishonest.
Here, since you seemed to defend other people's rights to
erect crosses on public property, the "logic underlying your
statement" would mean I could compare it to the right of
other people to erect crosses in your living room.
Fine by your logic, right? I've simply changed the
situation from public property to private property,
just like you did, and claiming that's where your
argument leads.
I didn't question
whether the religious institutions had the right to display religious
symbols, but whether the emotional reaction of nonbeliever or
unbelievers to those symbols had any real legal meaning unless the
symbols were used principally to inflame.
But that isn't the issue; you're either an idiot, or just
dishonest. And that isn't an exclusive "or"; you could
be both.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 02:00:05 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron Young wrote:
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this country.
Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and 95 of them will
say Jesus Christ.
Not responsive or to the point, like a lot of the noise masquerading as
argument around here.
The relative public notoriety of a symbol has no bearing.
Try to get a Sanskrit good luck symbol painted on the town
watertower, then.
You mean a swastika? Bad manners certainly, but do we have a lawyer or
judge in the crowd to tell us if a Hindu dominated city council, in a
city bound and determined to collect on the all its fire insurance
policies, would be legally barred from putting this symbol along with
the words "Good Luck" on their water tower?
Ridiculous situation, serious question.
But I thought you claimed it had NO bearing.
I don't believe it does in law, but was willing to request expert opinion.
In effect,
you're saying public display of an obscure symbol might be okay. The
question is the symbol's promotional or explicitly exclusionary power
where it is displayed. In the latter case, it is not sufficient for
someone to simply say that "it makes me feel excluded. (see Justice
O'Connors' concurrence in Elk Grove v Newdow.)
By your logic, the exterior of every church, mosque, temple, or other
well known religious meeting place would need to be devoid of any common
religious symbol to not be guilty of symbolic speech hostile to
atheists, i.e., hate speech, which while not yet illegal in this country
can have legal repercussions (libel, slander, etc.).
You are dishonestly comparing symbols erected on public property
with symbols erected on private property.
No, I'm extending the logic underlying your statement to a different
legal situation. Nothing dishonest about it all.
It's completely dishonest.
Here, since you seemed to defend other people's rights to
erect crosses on public property,
No, I question what rights an individual or small group of individuals
has to limit what the legally elected officials of a city might erect on
city property. I question what is a real violation of the Establishment
Clause and what is simply an attempt to exercise an heckler's veto.
the "logic underlying your
statement" would mean I could compare it to the right of
other people to erect crosses in your living room.
Absolutely specious. Violation of private property rights unless you
want to extend Kelo v New London to my living room.
Fine by your logic, right? I've simply changed the
situation from public property to private property,
just like you did, and claiming that's where your
argument leads.
I didn't question
whether the religious institutions had the right to display religious
symbols, but whether the emotional reaction of nonbeliever or
unbelievers to those symbols had any real legal meaning unless the
symbols were used principally to inflame.
But that isn't the issue;
That is the core issue. It is not one, however, you wish to address, so
you declare
you're either an idiot, or just
dishonest. And that isn't an exclusive "or"; you could
be both.
Did I call you stupid or dishonest? No, but you have just given me
sufficient reason to think you both churlish and illiberal.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 02:36:36 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron Young wrote:
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this country.
Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and 95 of them will
say Jesus Christ.
Not responsive or to the point, like a lot of the noise masquerading as
argument around here.
The relative public notoriety of a symbol has no bearing.
Try to get a Sanskrit good luck symbol painted on the town
watertower, then.
You mean a swastika? Bad manners certainly, but do we have a lawyer or
judge in the crowd to tell us if a Hindu dominated city council, in a
city bound and determined to collect on the all its fire insurance
policies, would be legally barred from putting this symbol along with
the words "Good Luck" on their water tower?
Ridiculous situation, serious question.
But I thought you claimed it had NO bearing.
I don't believe it does in law, but was willing to request expert opinion.
In effect,
you're saying public display of an obscure symbol might be okay. The
question is the symbol's promotional or explicitly exclusionary power
where it is displayed. In the latter case, it is not sufficient for
someone to simply say that "it makes me feel excluded. (see Justice
O'Connors' concurrence in Elk Grove v Newdow.)
By your logic, the exterior of every church, mosque, temple, or other
well known religious meeting place would need to be devoid of any common
religious symbol to not be guilty of symbolic speech hostile to
atheists, i.e., hate speech, which while not yet illegal in this country
can have legal repercussions (libel, slander, etc.).
You are dishonestly comparing symbols erected on public property
with symbols erected on private property.
No, I'm extending the logic underlying your statement to a different
legal situation. Nothing dishonest about it all.
It's completely dishonest.
Here, since you seemed to defend other people's rights to
erect crosses on public property,
No, I question what rights an individual or small group of individuals
has to limit what the legally elected officials of a city might erect on
city property.
Oh, they don't.
But, like everyone else, they have a right to go to court,
and see what the court says.
I question what is a real violation of the Establishment
Clause and what is simply an attempt to exercise an heckler's veto.
Simple. Public officials don't have the power to erect religious
symbols on government property.
the "logic underlying your
statement" would mean I could compare it to the right of
other people to erect crosses in your living room.
Absolutely specious. Violation of private property rights unless you
want to extend Kelo v New London to my living room.
You seemed perfectly OK with "extending" my argument to private
property, hypocrite.
Fine by your logic, right? I've simply changed the
situation from public property to private property,
just like you did, and claiming that's where your
argument leads.
I didn't question
whether the religious institutions had the right to display religious
symbols, but whether the emotional reaction of nonbeliever or
unbelievers to those symbols had any real legal meaning unless the
symbols were used principally to inflame.
But that isn't the issue;
That is the core issue.
Not at all, you fucking moron.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 03:33:46 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron Young wrote:
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this country.
Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and 95 of them will
say Jesus Christ.
Not responsive or to the point, like a lot of the noise masquerading as
argument around here.
The relative public notoriety of a symbol has no bearing.
Try to get a Sanskrit good luck symbol painted on the town
watertower, then.
You mean a swastika? Bad manners certainly, but do we have a lawyer or
judge in the crowd to tell us if a Hindu dominated city council, in a
city bound and determined to collect on the all its fire insurance
policies, would be legally barred from putting this symbol along with
the words "Good Luck" on their water tower?
Ridiculous situation, serious question.
But I thought you claimed it had NO bearing.
I don't believe it does in law, but was willing to request expert opinion.
In effect,
you're saying public display of an obscure symbol might be okay. The
question is the symbol's promotional or explicitly exclusionary power
where it is displayed. In the latter case, it is not sufficient for
someone to simply say that "it makes me feel excluded. (see Justice
O'Connors' concurrence in Elk Grove v Newdow.)
By your logic, the exterior of every church, mosque, temple, or other
well known religious meeting place would need to be devoid of any common
religious symbol to not be guilty of symbolic speech hostile to
atheists, i.e., hate speech, which while not yet illegal in this country
can have legal repercussions (libel, slander, etc.).
You are dishonestly comparing symbols erected on public property
with symbols erected on private property.
No, I'm extending the logic underlying your statement to a different
legal situation. Nothing dishonest about it all.
It's completely dishonest.
Here, since you seemed to defend other people's rights to
erect crosses on public property,
No, I question what rights an individual or small group of individuals
has to limit what the legally elected officials of a city might erect on
city property.
Oh, they don't.
But, like everyone else, they have a right to go to court,
and see what the court says.
I question what is a real violation of the Establishment
Clause and what is simply an attempt to exercise an heckler's veto.
Simple. Public officials don't have the power to erect religious
symbols on government property.
That's not really true. The question which has arisen often lately is
what sorts of symbols and in what context constitutes a violation.
How many towns will be putting up Xmas trees, Reindeer, Menorahs, etc.
in the next few week on public property, balancing the secular with the
religious?
the "logic underlying your
statement" would mean I could compare it to the right of
other people to erect crosses in your living room.
Absolutely specious. Violation of private property rights unless you
want to extend Kelo v New London to my living room.
You seemed perfectly OK with "extending" my argument to private
property, hypocrite.
No, I'm simply trying to discern how you or anyone else, provided they
are not hanging from it, is harmed by a cross on a hill, and, if you can
make a case as to how you are harmed, what difference, if any, it makes
if the cross is on a public hill or on a private church.
Fine by your logic, right? I've simply changed the
situation from public property to private property,
just like you did, and claiming that's where your
argument leads.
I didn't question
whether the religious institutions had the right to display religious
symbols, but whether the emotional reaction of nonbeliever or
unbelievers to those symbols had any real legal meaning unless the
symbols were used principally to inflame.
But that isn't the issue;
That is the core issue. <<restored>> It is not one, however, you wish to address.
Not at all, you fucking moron.
Quod erat demonstratum, "the compleat fuckwit"
I stopped knocking over the chess board by the time I was six, maybe
earlier.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 04:50:47 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
....
I question what is a real violation of the Establishment
Clause and what is simply an attempt to exercise an heckler's veto.
Simple. Public officials don't have the power to erect religious
symbols on government property.
That's not really true. The question which has arisen often lately is
what sorts of symbols and in what context constitutes a violation.
How many towns will be putting up Xmas trees, Reindeer, Menorahs, etc.
in the next few week on public property, balancing the secular with the
religious?
Well, the courts have ruled (incorrectly, I'd say) that they
don't count as religious symbols if they're surrounded by
enough junk. They even ruled explicitly that menorahs aren't
religious symbols.
the "logic underlying your
statement" would mean I could compare it to the right of
other people to erect crosses in your living room.
Absolutely specious. Violation of private property rights unless you
want to extend Kelo v New London to my living room.
You seemed perfectly OK with "extending" my argument to private
property, hypocrite.
No, I'm simply trying to discern how you or anyone else, provided they
are not hanging from it, is harmed by a cross on a hill, and, if you can
make a case as to how you are harmed, what difference, if any, it makes
if the cross is on a public hill or on a private church.
And likewise, you aren't harmed by people erecting crosses in
your living room.
However, harm isn't the sole reason for challenging crosses.
Fine by your logic, right? I've simply changed the
situation from public property to private property,
just like you did, and claiming that's where your
argument leads.
I didn't question
whether the religious institutions had the right to display religious
symbols, but whether the emotional reaction of nonbeliever or
unbelievers to those symbols had any real legal meaning unless the
symbols were used principally to inflame.
But that isn't the issue;
That is the core issue. <<restored>> It is not one, however, you wish to address.
Not at all, you fucking moron.
Quod erat demonstratum, "the compleat fuckwit"
Not at all.
I stopped knocking over the chess board by the time I was six, maybe
earlier.
Sorry, you're the idiot who dishonestly tried to change the frame of the
argument from public to private property, and then denied ME the
right to do exactly the same thing to your argument.
You've ignored the legal cite I gave, and dishonestly tried to
change the argument.
Like I said, you're a hypocrite.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 05:23:33 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
...
I question what is a real violation of the Establishment
Clause and what is simply an attempt to exercise an heckler's veto.
Simple. Public officials don't have the power to erect religious
symbols on government property.
That's not really true. The question which has arisen often lately is
what sorts of symbols and in what context constitutes a violation.
How many towns will be putting up Xmas trees, Reindeer, Menorahs, etc.
in the next few week on public property, balancing the secular with the
religious?
Well, the courts have ruled (incorrectly, I'd say) that they
don't count as religious symbols if they're surrounded by
enough junk. They even ruled explicitly that menorahs aren't
religious symbols.
the "logic underlying your
statement" would mean I could compare it to the right of
other people to erect crosses in your living room.
Absolutely specious. Violation of private property rights unless you
want to extend Kelo v New London to my living room.
You seemed perfectly OK with "extending" my argument to private
property, hypocrite.
No, I'm simply trying to discern how you or anyone else, provided they
are not hanging from it, is harmed by a cross on a hill, and, if you can
make a case as to how you are harmed, what difference, if any, it makes
if the cross is on a public hill or on a private church.
And likewise, you aren't harmed by people erecting crosses in
your living room.
However, harm isn't the sole reason for challenging crosses.
Fine by your logic, right? I've simply changed the
situation from public property to private property,
just like you did, and claiming that's where your
argument leads.
I didn't question
whether the religious institutions had the right to display religious
symbols, but whether the emotional reaction of nonbeliever or
unbelievers to those symbols had any real legal meaning unless the
symbols were used principally to inflame.
But that isn't the issue;
That is the core issue. <<restored>> It is not one, however, you wish to address.
Not at all, you fucking moron.
Quod erat demonstratum, "the compleat fuckwit"
Not at all.
I stopped knocking over the chess board by the time I was six, maybe
earlier.
Sorry, you're the idiot who dishonestly tried to change the frame of the
argument from public to private property, and then denied ME the
right to do exactly the same thing to your argument.
You've ignored the legal cite I gave, and dishonestly tried to
change the argument.
Like I said, you're a hypocrite.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Bravo, a new Fred is born
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 06:49:50 PM |
|
|
Mickey <mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> writes:
Brian Westley wrote:
....
You've ignored the legal cite I gave, and dishonestly tried to
change the argument.
Like I said, you're a hypocrite.
Bravo, a new Fred is born
Hey, good comeback. Let me know if you ever want to argue
honestly about church & state issues.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 12:54:39 PM |
|
|
Mickey wrote:
Ron Young wrote:
You seem to think that Christianity is the only religion in this
country. Ask 100 people in this country what a cross represents and
95 of them will say Jesus Christ.
Not responsive or to the point, like a lot of the noise masquerading
as argument around here.
The relative public notoriety of a symbol has no bearing. In effect,
you're saying public display of an obscure symbol might be okay. The
question is the symbol's promotional or explicitly exclusionary power
where it is displayed. In the latter case, it is not sufficient for
someone to simply say that "it makes me feel excluded. (see Justice
O'Connors' concurrence in Elk Grove v Newdow.)
Or realize that "the Supreme Court found that Newdow did not have standing
to bring suit " and "Because it found that Newdow did not have standing, the
Court failed to reach the constitutional question."
The case deals with the *reciting* of prayer in a public school and not with
a display of crosses.
By your logic, the exterior of every church, mosque, temple, or other
well known religious meeting place would need to be devoid of any
common religious symbol to not be guilty of symbolic speech hostile to
atheists, i.e., hate speech, which while not yet illegal in this
country can have legal repercussions (libel, slander, etc.).
Why? Religious meeting places are not government property.
If a government agency tried to do this the ACLU would, and has, defended
the church or person.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 05:17:18 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
Unless it's Islam, the left's favorite "religion."
------------------------------------------------------
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: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 06:46:38 PM |
|
|
On 15 Nov 2005 15:17:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
omarenoryt@aol.com wrote in
<1132096638.509413.108000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
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
Unless it's Islam, the left's favorite "religion."
What a peculiar idea. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 06:34:12 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 15 Nov 2005 15:17:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
omarenoryt@aol.com wrote in
<1132096638.509413.108000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
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
Unless it's Islam, the left's favorite "religion."
What a peculiar idea. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Probably that they object when some right wing fundy loon says bombing
Mecca would teach them who's boss
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starkiller©" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 07:37:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:34:12 +0000, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 15 Nov 2005 15:17:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
omarenoryt@aol.com wrote in
<1132096638.509413.108000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
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
Unless it's Islam, the left's favorite "religion."
What a peculiar idea. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Probably that they object when some right wing fundy loon says bombing
Mecca would teach them who's boss
America’s Secret Madrassas
By Lowell Ponte
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 3, 2003
PONTEFICATIONS
"IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROMOTE A GREATER UNDERSTANDING and empathy towards
the Muslim religion and toward other culture(s),” read the teacher
note sent home in November to each student’s parents or guardian, “I
am encouraging students to participate in an extra credit assignment.”
This assignment, wrote Seventh Grade history teacher Len Cesene, was
to fast during daylight hours for one, two or three days as Muslims do
during their holy month of Ramadan.
Such fasting during Ramadan, wrote this teacher at 1,600 student Royal
Oak Intermediate School in Covina, California, 35 miles east of Los
Angeles, is one of the “Five Pillars of Islam” fundamental to the
Muslim faith.
A Madrassa is a school where Islam is taught. We have come to think
of them as dusty hovels in outback Pakistan or Somalia where American
money exchanged for Saudi Arabian oil is used by the Saudis to
subsidize Korans and the nurturing of hatred against the West.
But by prompting his public school students to have “empathy towards”
and to practice one of the religious rituals of Islam, Cesene in
effect has turned Royal Oak Intermediate School into an American
Madrassa.
As you are about to discover, in doing this Cesene was merely carrying
out the statewide educational policy direction of the State of
California. He was extending the pro-Islamic lessons in textbooks that
have been used in California, Alabama, and many individual public
school districts – perhaps including the one where your children
attend school.
These California taxpayer-funded public school Madrassas have
reportedly used educational materials supplied by Saudi Arabia – just
as in similar schools in Pakistan.
Do these teachings produce hatred for the West? Such classes may
already have produced at least one American Taliban terrorist. These
teachings may also already have sown the seeds from which heaven only
knows how many more radical Islamists might spring.
“Don’t Turn Schools into Mosques” and “Separate Mosque and State” read
two of the signs carried outside this school by protestors on November
24. A large share of the up to 450 peaceful protestors reportedly
were Coptic immigrants who said their families had suffered
discrimination and persecution because they were Christians in
predominantly-Muslim Egypt.
“If they don’t want to talk about Christianity in school,” said one of
the protestors with the group AMECA, the Hemet, Calif.-based American
Middle-East Christian Association, “then they shouldn’t talk about any
religions.”
“America’s Christian children had better not even utter the name Jesus
Christ in public schools,” an AMECA press release announcing the
protest had said, “without persecution and prosecution by the
‘separation of church and state’ zealots.”
“As part of the state’s seventh-grade curriculum, students are taught
about Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism in terms of how these
religions shaped world history,” said an Editorial in the local San
Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper.
“The teaching of world religions makes for a well-rounded curriculum
and is totally appropriate for our public schools,” the Editorial
continued, “But inside the classroom, we support teaching students
about these faiths, not asking them to practice them….”
“Asking students to practice religion as a part of a public school
lesson,” the Editorial continued, “is a violation of the country’s
separation of church and state laws.”
What teacher Cesene did, albeit without malice and with good
intentions, the Editorial asserted, “is tantamount to an extra-credit
assignment about Catholicism that involves asking a student to
practice the Stations of the Cross. Or teaching about Protestantism by
requiring a student to take Holy Communion or become baptized.”
How would the American Civil Liberties Union respond to a public
school teacher giving “extra credit” to Jewish and Muslim students if
they accepted Christian baptism? These Christian protestors see a
public school assignment urging their children to participate in
Muslim religious ritual, however “voluntary,” as the same kind of
abuse of government power.
Where is the outrage of the ACLU, which in the past has argued that
asking students to endure even a “moment of silence” at the start of
the school day is coercive because it resembles Judeo-Christian
prayer?
Contrary to widespread belief, it is not illegal to include elements
of religion in public school classrooms. A person unable to recognize
references from the Bible would be culturally illiterate, so the Bible
(or Koran or any other religious work) may be studied – but only as
literature, not as theology or doctrine. And as said Tom Adams,
administrator for curriculum framework at the California Department of
Education, “You can’t talk about and teach history without bumping
into religion,” so religious activities may be studied – but only as
history.
But these lines and distinctions are difficult to make and maintain.
As poet William Butler Yeats asked, “How can we know the dancer from
the dance?” Or how can we squeeze the religious aspects out of
material events and symbols deeply associated with religions?
This season, e.g., New York City lawyers have directed that during the
religious holidays of late 2003 public school classrooms may display
the crescent-and-star symbol of Islam during Ramadan and the Jewish
menorah candlestick at Hanukkah. But these same schools may NOT
display creches depicting the baby Jesus around Christmas, the
Christian holiday celebrating Jesus’ birth.
The Islamic and Jewish symbols have historic and secular dimensions,
the New York City school district lawyers argue, but the “suggestion
that a creche is a historically accurate representation of an event
with secular significance is wholly disingenuous.”
“What is history,” said Napoleon, “but a story agreed upon?”
Christians agree that the birth of Jesus is not only historic but is
also among the greatest events in history, rivaled only by Christ’s
resurrection. For the government to declare the traditional nativity
scene of this event un-historic, and thereby to banish it from public
school classrooms that on every pagan religious Halloween are allowed
to put up images of ghosts, seems to Christians bizarre – and
discriminatory.
(By contrast, even the Leftist teachers’ union NEA, the National
Education Association, offered recent guidelines that “teachers may
wear modest jewelry, such as a cross or Star of David” or yarmulke and
that religious objects can have a proper place in the public school
classroom.)
The Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed for a
temporary restraining order against the City of New York, arguing that
New York’s policy “promotes the Jewish and Islamic faiths while
conveying the impermissible message of disapproval of Christianity in
violation of the U.S. Constitution.”
While New York City was officially banning Christian creches, the
headquarters of the New York City Police Department put on display in
its lobby at the start of Ramadan a copy of Islam’s holy book The
Koran, despite objection from the ACLU.
(When Muhammad was asked what miracle proved that he was God’s
messenger, he replied: “This Koran. This is the miracle.” And most of
those fluent in Arabic agree that the beauty and poetry of this book
are light years beyond the ken of an illiterate camel driver like
Muhammad. So to display a Koran is to display symbolically the central
miracle of Islam…in that sense not unlike displaying a Christian
creche, symbolic of God’s word becoming flesh and dwelling among us.)
Urging this display of friendship to Muslims was NYPD chaplain Imam
Izak-El Mu’eed, who told Newsday that religion is essential in the
lives of policemen. “By the nature of the job they have to have some
faith,” he told the newspaper. “There’s no way to do it without having
faith.”
In the wake of 9-11’s Islamist terror attacks on New York City, who
would disagree? But why have city lawyers rewarded these terrorists by
elevating Islamic symbols while attacking the faith of Christian
police officers by tearing the creches out of the schools of their
children?
Knowledge of history produces understanding, and for that reason
California developed an extensive curriculum that includes teaching
how four major religions have influenced humankind. In Seventh Grade,
at just the age when Jewish and Christian children traditionally are
about to be confirmed by ritual in their faith, in California public
schools they are exposed to Islam.
The nature of that exposure caused huge controversy in 2002. Parents
began to awaken to evidence that this government curriculum and the
statewide-adopted history text written to fit it titled Across the
Centuries seemed to tilt in favor of Islam and against Christianity.
(Alabama, according to USA Today, also adopted this book as its
statewide history text.) Such teaching had been in place for about a
decade with few parents aware of what and how their children were
being taught.
As came to light at two schools in the Oakland suburb of Byron,
California, students were being taught the history of Islam by
adopting Muslim names, dressing as Muslims, learning the Five Pillars
of Islam, and memorizing an Islamic prayer that extols the greatness
of Allah.
Class learning included students building the model of a Mosque (place
of worship) and imagining themselves on a pilgrimage to Mecca, that
pilgrimage called the Haj being one of the five Pillars of the faith.
At a public high school in Elk Grove, California, one day the front
grounds of the school featured a banner that read “There is one God,
Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.”
“What if we put up a sign that says ‘Jesus is Lord’ for 30 minutes?
Oh, no. You can’t do that – separation of church and state,” said the
mother of a daughter underwent what she calls indoctrination in the
Muslim religion in that school’s seventh-grade history class.
“We can’t even mention the name of Jesus in the public schools,” said
one teacher and parent of a seventh-grade student, but “they teach
Islam as the true religion, and students are taught about Islam and
how to pray to Allah.”
The textbook accompanying such teaching, Across the Centuries, as
outraged parent Jen Schroeder wrote in a ten-page critique (pdf
format), describes Muhammad receiving the Koran via the Angel Gabriel
as a fact, not qualified as something believed by Muslims. The same is
true for assertions that Muhammad ascended to heaven from Jerusalem
and spoke to God – presented as fact, not faith. Her critique gives
many examples of what seems more like proselytizing than pedagogy.
Speaking of this city that is holy to three religions, this textbook
tells students that “Jerusalem is where Jesus was crucified and
buried, and it was where Muhammad rose to heaven.” The
parent-defending Pacific Justice Institute responded sardonically to
this biased textbook sentence: “Is the word ‘resurrection’ too
difficult to spell?”
“Muhammad’s success in spreading Islam was due in large part to his
strong character,” says this textbook for seventh-graders. “His
followers were attracted to his morality, courage, and compassion,
perhaps as much as they were attracted to his teaching.”
“Are we painting Muhammad as a hero here or what?” writes critic
Schroeder. “Compassion? He wrote to kill all infidels in the Quran!”
Even Leftist Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United
for Separation of Church and State, found the pro-Islamic tilt – and
what seems like the addition of Muslim religious recruitment to the
other three “R”s – too hard to stomach.
“Public schools are required by law to maintain strict neutrality on
religious matters,” said Lynn. “This project appears to have fallen
well short of neutrality.”
What Lynn and other critics mean is that this textbook and curriculum
have students memorizing and mimicking Islamic prayers and theology.
But when it comes to learning about Judaism, no comparable engagement
with its traditions or literature is taught. Christianity is given
short shrift, treated as a mere sub-topic under Judaism and history of
the Roman Empire.
Oh, with one exception: when examples of religious atrocities and
crimes are given, every single evil deed is an act committed by
Christians. Not a single atrocity or evil deed is anywhere ascribed
to Islam.
Despite the controversy, in cash-strapped school districts in
California, 10 Commandments-purged Alabama and elsewhere this
provocative $60+ textbook is still in wide use.
How did such a textbook get written and approved? It was launched in
accord with California policy in 1991, which wanted such a book to
advance the state’s multi-culturalist, inclusive agenda.
(America by some accounts is now home to more Muslims than
Presbyterians and is adjusting its culture and politics accordingly.
But it’s worth noting that of the world population of 1.2 billion
Muslims – one in five human beings – the majority is non-Arab. The
five nations with the largest Muslim populations, according to the CIA
World Factbook, are Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh (formerly
East Pakistan), and Turkey – with a combined Muslim population above
650 million. The next five with the most Muslims include Nigeria,
Ethiopia and Persian Iran, with only Egypt and Morocco as nominally
“Arabic” nations in the top ten. And yet the pro-Muslim
multiculturalist agenda would lead people to believe that Islam is a
predominately Arab faith, perhaps because of its origin in Saudi
Arabia.)
In 1990 a new man was named its Chairman and Chief Executive Office at
this textbook’s publisher Houghton Mifflin, and in 1991 he was also
given the title President at the company. He was Nader F. Darehshori,
who before coming to the United States in “the early 1960s,” as his
short biography tells, was for a year a teacher “in a one-room
elementary school in his native Iran.”
Iran, of course, is an overwhelmingly-Islamic country.
The textbook was published with approval by the Council on Islamic
Education (CIE), formed in 1988 to promote a better treatment of the
subject of Islam in such texts. But, reportedly, according to one
Houghton Mifflin executive CIE not only reviewed the book for errors
and insensitivities after it was written, but also supplied
information about the crusades that was incorporated into the textbook
itself.
This 558-page history textbook, notes Rod Dreher in National Review,
includes 55 pages about Islam, all of them positive. By contrast, the
entire Middle Ages in Europe get only seven pages, and Christianity is
discussed therein “not in terms of moral and theological belief, but
almost entirely as a matter of power relations and social
organization.”
The whole eastern half of the Roman Empire known as the Byzantine
Empire that survived until 1453 (when Muslim Ottoman Turks toppled
Constantinople) gets only six pages. A chapter about “Village Society
in West Africa,” notes Dreher, rates eight pages.
But praiseful writing about Islam takes up 10 percent of this entire
history book written for American students to study in their American
Madrassas. It is what scholar Daniel Pipes calls an example of “the
privileging of Islam in the United States.”
One seventh-grade history teacher from the California Bay Area is
troubled not only by the superior presentation of Islam in the
textbook Across the Centuries but also by the teaching materials used
alongside it in California classrooms.
“The Saudis have contributed well-written, lavishly illustrated free
materials that are popular with students.” These materials, of
course, are pro-Islamic propaganda of the extreme Wahabbist sect
dominant in Saudi Arabia, paid for with the dollars of oil-buyers, now
washing back into the brains of young American schoolchildren in a
concerted effort to persuade our kids to, in Pipes’ phrase, “Think
like a Muslim.”
Islamic oil money also funded and shaped television programs such as
“Islam: Empire of Faith” on the Public Broadcasting Service, a
Muslim-friendly documentary now used as a teaching tool in America’s
public school madrassa classrooms.
Lest we forget, this is a one-way street. In dogmatic Islamic lands
such as Saudi Arabia not a single pro-Christian or pro-Jewish word or
image is permitted in their classrooms, textbooks, or television
programming. No Jewish or Christian equivalent of the CIE is permitted
to shape or influence how other faiths are depicted. They assert the
right to convert the United States to Islam, but nobody of another
faith is given any chance to convert anyone in Saudi Arabia. Indeed,
to convert a Muslim away from Islam is in Saudi Arabia a crime under
Sharia law punishable by death.
But does it matter when a handout supplement to the pro-Muslim Across
the Centuries textbook hypnotically tells students that, as an
exercise, “You and your classmates will become Muslims”? Or when
students are required to memorize a prayer that includes the line
“Praise be to Allah, Lord of Creation”?
At FrontPage Magazine nearly two years ago Jamie Glazov envisioned the
possibility that some of our children, converted to Islam because of
what they were taught in public schools, turned into Islamist
terrorists.
This may already have happened, speculates Jennifer Schroeder. The
young American caught with Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, John
Walker Lindh, had become a fanatical convert to Islam. He was educated
in fashionably-multiculturalist Bay Area schools during the early
1990s when the pro-Islamic Across the Centuries, she writes, “was the
ONLY approved textbook.”
John Walker Lindh, who may have been involved in the killing of a CIA
agent, might be the first of many whose life path was radically bent
in Islam’s direction by the tilt of such teaching and textbooks. As
the late Richard Weaver recognized, ideas have consequences….and so
does the turning of our public schools into de facto Madrassas.
Instead of trying to remedy this by separating church and state,
perhaps the time has come to separate school and state so that parents
can choose schools for their children that teach values and faith
compatible with their own.
Regards
Starkiller©
The Diva Palace Forums
http://taker15king.clicdev.com/f/index.php?act=idx
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
