"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message

news:1176991473.498732.185260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 18, 9:37 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message

news:1176945587.107001.134500@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 18, 8:31 pm, "John D.Wentzky" <johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu>
wrote:

"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
messagenews:778c23hr3jnvarp7447bqb87qm4dojvq57@4ax.com...

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:16:41 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwent...@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:

"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:sffb23dkcegk6j5m1dbnj1dvp0euo5kous@4ax.com...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/17/184527/759

"My daughter, several summers ago, broke her back and bruised her
spine....Surgery was necessary to relieve that pressure, and it
was
necessary that it be performed immediately: the surgery was
scheduled
for very early the next morning.

But when her mother and I arrived that morning, we found that the
surgery had been called off. Somehow, magically, my daughter's
condition had improved, overnight, to where the would-be Enloe
surgeon
now could certify her as capable of being moved to Kaiser Hospital
in
Sacramento.

My daughter was insured through Kaiser, and soulless bean-counting
Kaiser drones had informed Enloe that Kaiser would not reimburse
Enloe
if the surgery was performed at Enloe. My daughter was insured by
Kaiser: Kaiser would pay only for treatment by Kaiser medical
personnel. So. If Enloe performed what Enloe itself had declared a
medical necessity, Enloe could not now count on receiving moolah.
So.
Through magic, sheer magic, overnight Enloe downgraded my
daughter's
surgery from "medically necessary" to "sure, it's okay: put her in
an
ambulance and bounce her down to Sacramento, where she can wait,
oh,
say, four days for the surgery, until she fits into the schedule
of
the Kaiser surgeons."

Good post, Yang.
A clear case of non-Christian medical negligence.

I can post Christian medical negligence too.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/09/america-this-is-your-health-care-...

"A paraplegic man wearing a soiled hospital gown and a broken
colostomy bag was found crawling in a gutter in skid row in Los
Angeles on Thursday after allegedly being dumped in the street by a
Hollywood PRESBYTERIAN Medical Center van, police said. The
incident,
witnessed by more than two dozen people, was described by police as
a
particularly outrageous case of 'homeless dumping' that has plagued
the downtown area."

I must ask you if the story mentions whether the hospital was
affiliated
with the PCUSA.
Placing the name of the nation on a Church would not be in line with
the
separation of Church and State dictum, now would it?

Yes, it would.

Your secularist government infringement of free exercise of religion
already
showing.

That is only in your imagination. Not telling a religious
organization what they can and cannot name themselves is not an
infringement on the people's religions.

The government is forbidden from placing their name on any relgious
institution.

They cannot approve any religious group that seeks to carry their name upon
it.

Allowing religious groups to carry the name of the US government is
equivalent to Congress making a law that respsects an establishment of
religion.

The United States could have a cabinet level position termed Secretary of
Religion without respecting an establishment of religion.

As long there is no federal law that says that a church can or cannot
name itself, and all churches and organizations
are treated equally without favoritism or animosity, there is no
reason why an organization or churches or any other religious
organization cannot call themselves "X of America" or "X of the United
States of America" or anything else mentioning "America" or the
"United States of America", or any state for that matter.

The unconstitutional, secularist opinions of yours are irrelevant to this
discussion.

Nothing I said was unconstitutional, and it is highly relevant to the
discussion since it corrects the misconceptions that you put forth.
And since the government is secular, and must be secular according to
the First Amendment, there is no way to keep secular and pertinent
facts out of the discussion.

The federal government is forbidden from approving any religious
organzation
that carries its name.

No religious organization carries the name of the federal government.

PCUSA.

The First Amendment prevents the government from interfering and
dictating the names of any religious or civilian organization.

When will you realize that the government grants charters to organizations?

There is a PCA, which could not be deemed in violation of the
Constitution;
and state and local churches that carry the names of their locations in
their title are not in violation of the anti-fed infringement statute.

Nor are religious organizations that are nationwide in scope and carry
names that say "X of the United States of America" in violation of any
statute.

Error.

The First Amendment does not allow such organizations to be in existence in
the USA.

This shows the location that the organization is concerned with, and
implies no
affiliation with any secular government.

Error.

Only on your part.

Placing the name of the USA government on a Church is equivalent to
making a
law that respects an establishment of religion.

No,

Stop denying the Constitution's requirements.

If you do not like the First Amendment's prohibition on respecting an
establishment of religion them lobby for the amendment to eb changed.

it is not as long as the government does not actually pass a law
requiring such a name.

Requiring is no different from approving such organizations' charters.

And having "USA" in the name of the organization is NOT place "the name
of the USA government" into the
name.
It is placing a location name into the organization name, just
as if the name was "X of South Carolina" or "X of Alabama" is placing
a location name into the organization name and not an indication that
the organization is affiliated with the state government.

So, how do you think NYPresbyterianChurchUSA Hospital feels about the
partial birth abortion ban law since they were already cited for contempt of
court regarding that law after the PBA ban law was enacted and became law
initially?

It seems to me that the roevwadehouse is crumbling.

I assume that the hospital you mentioned was affiliated with the
PCUSA.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Something that you have never shown much understanding of.

Your ignorance is what is seen.

Nope. What you are seeing is my knowledge. You are the one that is
displaying an abundance of ignorance.

I understand that the government is forbidden from respecting an
establishment of religion, so they could tell the PCUSA to remove the
terminology that leads people to believe that the US government is
affiliated with a religious organization from their name.

Here is another issue for you to consider.
Since free exercise of religion is the right of the people how many times do
you think charging people for things such as registering a trademark and for
filing the trademark applications, etc is fulfilling the FREE Exercise
requirement?

When the federal government authorizes Churches to carry its name upon
them
it seems as if they are respecting an establishment of religion.

However, the federal government did NOT tell the religious
organization/organization of churches what they could and could not
name their organization.

The federal government approved their charter.

The federal government had no say in their charter.

*****.

The organization's leaders approve the organization's charter.

The government has the authority to approve or deny such charters.

Those acts carry the force of law.

Those "acts" are only in your imagination. The federal government had
nothing to do with the organization.

*****.

Check the IRS filings if you think the Feds have nothing to do with religion
nowadays.

Therefore, there was nothing that shows that
there was any law respecting the establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion by the people.

Another idea of yours that the Constitution doesn't actually mean what it
states.

Those are your ideas, not mine. Unlike you, I understand what the
Constitution says and means.

Why are you defending blatant violations of the Constitutional requirements?