Religions > Atheism > Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 Mar 2007 06:21:35 AM |
| Object: |
Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
FEDERAL COURT: STARKE, FLA. VIOLATED FEDERAL, STATE CONSTITUTIONS BY
FEDERAL COURT: STARKE, FLA. VIOLATED FEDERAL, STATE CONSTITUTIONS BY
DISPLAYING CHRISTIAN CROSS
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=22575
March 21, 2007
A federal court ruled Tuesday that the city of Starke, Fla. violated
the federal and state constitutions by placing and maintaining a metal
Christian cross on top of a municipal water tower.
A resident of the town, aided by American Atheists and represented by
attorney Frank Shooster, challenged the display which had been erected
over 30 years ago at the behest of local officials, and was
illuminated at night. The cross was also periodically maintained at
public expense.
U.S. District Court Judge John H. Moore, II found for the plaintiffs,
and dismissed several arguments devised by the City. Citing earlier
legal precedents, the judge noted that the cross was
"indistinguishable from the ubiquitous crosses found on any number of
churches within the State of Florida and across the country
symbolizing Christianity." He added in his written opinion:
"The display of the Cross on the water tower has the unconstitutional
effect of advancing, affirming, or otherwise validating Christianity
.... To the objective observer, the combination of the words 'STARKE'
and the Cross on the water tower clearly communicates the City's
endorsement of Christianity..."
Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists, hailed the
ruling as a "great victory for the First Amendment separation of
church and state."
"No government, whether federal, local or state, should be promoting
sectarian religion and using public money to build and maintain
religious displays," Kagin added.
The City of Starke, Fla. removed the cross prior to today's finding.
Judge Moore said that his ruling of Summary Judgment was necessary to
prevent the town government "at some point in the future" from
re-erecting the unconstitutional Christian cross on public property.
"Let's hope that city officials comply with the District Court and not
try an 'end run' around the First Amendment," said Mr. Kagin. "If they
do, we'll be ready to fight this case again."
AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights
for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and
addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "zzpat" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State ConstitutionsFederal Court rules |
23 Mar 2007 12:06:25 PM |
|
|
God doesn't need monuments.
--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/
Articles of Impeachment
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/april_2006/articles_of_impeachment.html
Articles of Impeachment Against Richard Cheney
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/feb_2007/the_people_v_richard_cheney.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "human" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
25 Mar 2007 07:08:01 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, zzpat wrote:
God doesn't need monuments.
Tell that to the citizens of San Diego who have fought the courts for over
17 years in the matter of the illegal, unconstitutional cross atop Mt.
Soledad.
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
|
|
|
| User: "snakehawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
25 Mar 2007 07:36:27 AM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 7:08 am, human <h...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, zzpat wrote:
God doesn't need monuments.
Tell that to the citizens of San Diego who have fought the courts for over
17 years in the matter of the illegal, unconstitutional cross atop Mt.
Soledad.
God may not need monuments, but apparently He needs a country. The
U.S. government has been financing a religious enclave in the Middle
East for over 60 years amounting to hundreds of billions of taxpayers'
dollars. If the judge was right about the constitutional prohibitions
against even the appearance of validating any religion, then the
annual tribute to the religious state of Israel, a state founded on
biblical passages where citizenship is based on religious affiliation,
is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
26 Mar 2007 08:49:04 PM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2007 05:36:27 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com>
wrote:
God may not need monuments, but apparently He needs a country. The
U.S. government has been financing a religious enclave in the Middle
East for over 60 years amounting to hundreds of billions of taxpayers'
dollars. If the judge was right about the constitutional prohibitions
against even the appearance of validating any religion, then the
annual tribute to the religious state of Israel, a state founded on
biblical passages where citizenship is based on religious affiliation,
is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
That would apply to most Moslem countries, most Catholic countries,
many Protestant countries - in fact, the only safe way out would be to
limit foreign aid to openly atheistic countries. It would even
prohibit most federal domestic aid, and it would definitely defund the
OFBCI (Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), since just
about ALL their funding goes to religious organizations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snakehawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
27 Mar 2007 10:02:51 AM |
|
|
On Mar 26, 8:49 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 25 Mar 2007 05:36:27 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakeh...@MailAndNews.com>
wrote:
God may not need monuments, but apparently He needs a country. The
U.S. government has been financing a religious enclave in the Middle
East for over 60 years amounting to hundreds of billions of taxpayers'
dollars. If the judge was right about the constitutional prohibitions
against even the appearance of validating any religion, then the
annual tribute to the religious state of Israel, a state founded on
biblical passages where citizenship is based on religious affiliation,
is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
That would apply to most Moslem countries, most Catholic countries,
many Protestant countries - in fact, the only safe way out would be to
limit foreign aid to openly atheistic countries. It would even
prohibit most federal domestic aid, and it would definitely defund the
OFBCI (Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), since just
about ALL their funding goes to religious organizations.
Does the United States give aid to countries where Islam, Catholicism,
or Prostestantism is a basis of citizenship? If it does, then I agree
that is a violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the
judicial decisions relating to Christianity in the United States.
Public funds should not be used to prop up governments based on Islam
or Judaism--any more than public funds should be used to support the
Vatican.
If there is a "wall" between church and state, then the wall should
apply to all churches and all religions. If the state, local, and
federal governments in the United States cannot even give the
appearance of recognizing Christianity, the dominant religion among
the people of the United States, then those same governments cannot
give the appearance of recognizing Judaism by financially supporting a
foreign state based on Judaism.
By sending billions to Israel every year, the United States government
is formally supporting, validating, and virtually "establishing"
Judaism as a religion formally recognized by the United States
government--a clear violation of the First Amendment. Aid to Israel,
loans to Israel, arms to Israel, financial help of any kind to Israel,
is forbidden by the U.S. constitution. Either that, or the Amendment
must reinterpreted to allow the U.S. government to at least assist
Christian and other religious entities within the United States.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
29 Mar 2007 08:42:13 PM |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2007 08:02:51 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com>
wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:49 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
That would apply to most Moslem countries, most Catholic countries,
many Protestant countries - in fact, the only safe way out would be to
limit foreign aid to openly atheistic countries. It would even
prohibit most federal domestic aid, and it would definitely defund the
OFBCI (Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), since just
about ALL their funding goes to religious organizations.
Does the United States give aid to countries where Islam, Catholicism,
or Prostestantism is a basis of citizenship?
Judaism is NOT a requirement for citizenship in Israel. There are
even Moslem members of the Knesset. Why would a country that requires
its citizens to be Jews allow Moslems to make its laws?
If it does, then I agree
that is a violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the
judicial decisions relating to Christianity in the United States.
Not even close. It prohibits the government from doing something
whose purpose is religious, according to the Court.
Public funds should not be used to prop up governments based on Islam
or Judaism--any more than public funds should be used to support the
Vatican.
Nothing unconstitutional if the purpose isn't religious.
If there is a "wall" between church and state, then the wall should
apply to all churches and all religions.
The wall is that the government can't take official notice of
religion. "Make no law" doesn't mean "make a law that says no".
If the state, local, and
federal governments in the United States cannot even give the
appearance of recognizing Christianity, the dominant religion among
the people of the United States, then those same governments cannot
give the appearance of recognizing Judaism by financially supporting a
foreign state based on Judaism.
It's not "recognizing" Judaism, any more than it's "recognizing" Islam
by giving aid to Saudi Arabia, although there are no non-Moslems
making law in Saudi. It's ignoring religion, which is what the
Constitution requires.
By sending billions to Israel every year
The US gives more foreign aid to Islamic countries than it gives to
Israel.
Aid to Israel,
loans to Israel, arms to Israel, financial help of any kind to Israel,
is forbidden by the U.S. constitution. Either that, or the Amendment
must reinterpreted to allow the U.S. government to at least assist
Christian and other religious entities within the United States.
Or the US must obey the law, which says that giving foreign aid to a
sovereign nation is legal, regardless of what its major religion is,
but that giving religious aid to people in the US is prohibited.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snakehawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
29 Mar 2007 09:43:25 PM |
|
|
On Mar 29, 8:42 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 08:02:51 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakeh...@MailAndNews.com>
wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:49 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
That would apply to most Moslem countries, most Catholic countries,
many Protestant countries - in fact, the only safe way out would be to
limit foreign aid to openly atheistic countries. It would even
prohibit most federal domestic aid, and it would definitely defund the
OFBCI (Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), since just
about ALL their funding goes to religious organizations.
Does the United States give aid to countries where Islam, Catholicism,
or Prostestantism is a basis of citizenship?
Judaism is NOT a requirement for citizenship in Israel. There are
even Moslem members of the Knesset. Why would a country that requires
its citizens to be Jews allow Moslems to make its laws?
All Jews, anywhere in the world, are permitted to become citizens of
Israel upon arrival--simply because they are Jews. Israel is
officially a Jewish state. Ask them if you don't believe me. And
because Israel is a Jewish state--a state founded on and maintained by
religion--the United States is prohibited from officially supporting
or validating the religious state. If the United States sent money to
the Vatican, the Jews would howl to high heaven.
If it does, then I agree
that is a violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the
judicial decisions relating to Christianity in the United States.
Not even close. It prohibits the government from doing something
whose purpose is religious, according to the Court.
Everything about Israel is religious. Why else should it exist? What
is the reason for preventing non-Jews from staying there? Why can't
Palestinians return to their prior homes in Israel, stay in their
present homes in Israel, work their farms in Israel, run a business in
Israel? It's because they are not Jews. It's because they are not of
the right religion.
If Israel is not a religious entity, but just a secular state, why
aren't the non-Jewish Palestinians automatically citizens of the
country in which they were born, in which their ancestors farmed for
centuries? Why did the Jews chase the Palestinians out of Jaffa,
Acre, and Jerusalem?
Israel is a bigotted religious state, a murderous racist state. And
it is a violation of the U.S. constitution for the United States
government to use public funds to formally fund a country based on
religion.
Public funds should not be used to prop up governments based on Islam
or Judaism--any more than public funds should be used to support the
Vatican.
Nothing unconstitutional if the purpose isn't religious.
Remember the Judge's ruling: it can't even look like the government is
supporting a religion.
If there is a "wall" between church and state, then the wall should
apply to all churches and all religions.
The wall is that the government can't take official notice of
religion. "Make no law" doesn't mean "make a law that says no".
Tell that to the Christians who are prohibited from setting up a
nativity scene on public property.
If the state, local, and
federal governments in the United States cannot even give the
appearance of recognizing Christianity, the dominant religion among
the people of the United States, then those same governments cannot
give the appearance of recognizing Judaism by financially supporting a
foreign state based on Judaism.
It's not "recognizing" Judaism, any more than it's "recognizing" Islam
by giving aid to Saudi Arabia, although there are no non-Moslems
making law in Saudi. It's ignoring religion, which is what the
Constitution requires.
The U.S. buy oil from Saudi Arabia--it doesn't give the Saudis aid.
But if it did, it would violate the constitution.
By sending billions to Israel every year
The US gives more foreign aid to Islamic countries than it gives to
Israel.
Then it should stop. It's unconstitutional.
Aid to Israel,
loans to Israel, arms to Israel, financial help of any kind to Israel,
is forbidden by the U.S. constitution. Either that, or the Amendment
must reinterpreted to allow the U.S. government to at least assist
Christian and other religious entities within the United States.
Or the US must obey the law, which says that giving foreign aid to a
sovereign nation is legal, regardless of what its major religion is,
but that giving religious aid to people in the US is prohibited.
What kind of law is it that prohibits Christians from expressing their
religion on public property, but allows public funds by the billions
go to support a Judaic state in the Middle East? Think of the good
that could be accomplished if the United States gave those billions to
the Catholic church to help destitute and down-on-their-luck
Americans. Like the money annually lavished on Israel, the grants
wouldn't be for "religious" purposes; it would be to help the poor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
30 Mar 2007 11:09:43 AM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2007 19:43:25 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakehawk@MailAndNews.com>
wrote:
On Mar 29, 8:42 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 08:02:51 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakeh...@MailAndNews.com>
wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:49 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
That would apply to most Moslem countries, most Catholic countries,
many Protestant countries - in fact, the only safe way out would be to
limit foreign aid to openly atheistic countries. It would even
prohibit most federal domestic aid, and it would definitely defund the
OFBCI (Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), since just
about ALL their funding goes to religious organizations.
Does the United States give aid to countries where Islam, Catholicism,
or Prostestantism is a basis of citizenship?
Judaism is NOT a requirement for citizenship in Israel. There are
even Moslem members of the Knesset. Why would a country that requires
its citizens to be Jews allow Moslems to make its laws?
All Jews, anywhere in the world, are permitted to become citizens of
Israel upon arrival--simply because they are Jews.
Just because all human men are male mammals, it doesn't follow that
all male mammals are human men.
Your argument was that Judaism is a requirement for citizenship in
Israel. It's not.
Israel is officially a Jewish state.
We give aid to MANY theocracies - most of them Moslem, some of them
Christian.
If the United States sent money to
the Vatican, the Jews would howl to high heaven.
If the United States sent money to Myanmar ... oh, we do.
If the United States sent money to Malta ... oh, we do.
How many more theocratic states would you like to see listed to refute
your assertion?
If it does, then I agree
that is a violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the
judicial decisions relating to Christianity in the United States.
Not even close. It prohibits the government from doing something
whose purpose is religious, according to the Court.
Everything about Israel is religious.
In the same vein, everything about MANY countries we give aid to is
religious.
What is the reason for preventing non-Jews from staying there?
Which non-Jewish residents of Israel does Israel prevent from living
there? (Around 15% of the Israeli population is Moslem, another few
percent Christian, with Druze and others making up the rest.)
Why can't Palestinians return to their prior homes in Israel
You mean the ones who left at the orders of the Imam? Almost all of
them are dead.
stay in their present homes in Israel, work their farms in Israel, run a business in
Israel?
Palestinians are residents of Palestine - at their insistence.
Residents of Israel, Jews, Moslems and others, DO live in their homes
in Israel, work their farms in Israel, run their businesses in Israel
and work at their jobs in Israel.
Why can't Mexican farm workers work at their jobs in the US? Because
Mexico isn't the US? Palestine isn't Israel - the Palestinians
insisted on having their own country, so why do they think citizens of
one country automatically have the right to enter another country?
People not citizens of the US don't automatically have the right to
enter the US.
It's because they are not Jews.
It's because they're not Israelis. Israeli non-Jews live in Israel
their entire lives.
If Israel is not a religious entity, but just a secular state
Sovereign and secular aren't the same thing. We give aid to many
sectarian states. We're allowed to give foreign aid to sovereign
nations, we're not allowed to take official note of religion.
why aren't the non-Jewish Palestinians automatically citizens of the
country in which they were born, in which their ancestors farmed for
centuries?
1) Citizenship doesn't come with ancestry. I have ancestry all over
Europe, but I'm not a citizen of a single European nation, nor can I
claim any "right" to enter one.
2) The Palestinians WERE residents of Israel until THEY insisted on
becoming citizens of their own nation, Palestine. One of the things
they had to do was give up all claims to Israeli citizenship. those
who FREELY CHOSE to do so are no longer entitled to anything from
Israel. Those who chose to stay in Israel are Israeli citizens.
Why did the Jews chase the Palestinians out of Jaffa, Acre, and Jerusalem?
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem ORDERED them out of the Israeli Mandate
at the Partition.
Israel is a bigotted religious state
Myanmar is a bigoted Moslem state. So is Indonesia. So is Egypt. So
is Saudi Arabia. Complain about all the foreign aid we're giving
them. Our female soldiers can't even wear government issued clothing
in Saudi - how's that for bigotry?
And it is a violation of the U.S. constitution for the United States
government to use public funds to formally fund a country based on
religion.
The aid isn't based on religion, it's based on politics. But if we
have to stop foreign aid to any country based on religion, we're going
to have to stop giving most of the aid we give. and get out of Iraq,
which was, when we invaded, based SOLELY on the division in Islam
between Sunni and Shia.
Public funds should not be used to prop up governments based on Islam
or Judaism--any more than public funds should be used to support the
Vatican.
Nothing unconstitutional if the purpose isn't religious.
Remember the Judge's ruling: it can't even look like the government is
supporting a religion.
Then all foreign aid has to cease, ands all wars in religious
countries have to cease immediately. Afghanistan. Iraq. No more aid
in the form of military personnel and materiel. No more aid to
countries that believe in Sharia law. No more aid to countries whose
laws are based on the Bible.
The wall is that the government can't take official notice of
religion. "Make no law" doesn't mean "make a law that says no".
Tell that to the Christians who are prohibited from setting up a
nativity scene on public property.
Making a law permitting nativity scenes on public property is
violating "make NO law".
The U.S. buy oil from Saudi Arabia--it doesn't give the Saudis aid.
Sending troops to Saudi Arabia is giving aid. Coercion if keeping
oil prices high is giving foreign aid. (Why did Saudi lower prices
just before the election?)
But if it did, it would violate the constitution.
It does, it does and no one cares, because Saudis aren't Jews or
Black.
By sending billions to Israel every year
The US gives more foreign aid to Islamic countries than it gives to
Israel.
Then it should stop. It's unconstitutional.
It's not. But it also gives aid to Christian countries. If we
stopped giving aid to all countries that were based on religion we'd
pretty much stop giving foreign aid.
Or the US must obey the law, which says that giving foreign aid to a
sovereign nation is legal, regardless of what its major religion is,
but that giving religious aid to people in the US is prohibited.
What kind of law is it that prohibits Christians from expressing their
religion on public property, but allows public funds by the billions
go to support a Judaic state in the Middle East?
No law mentions anything about any Judaic state - that would be
unconstitutional, since it would be a law concerning religion. As
would a law permitting Christians to "express their religion on public
property".
Think of the good that could be accomplished if the United States gave those billions to
the Catholic church to help destitute and down-on-their-luck
Americans.
Why give it to the Church? Why not give it directly to the destitute?
Why does any church have to be involved?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State ConstitutionsFederal Court rules |
29 Mar 2007 10:41:05 PM |
|
|
snakehawk wrote:
On Mar 29, 8:42 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 08:02:51 -0700, "snakehawk" <snakeh...@MailAndNews.com>
wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:49 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
That would apply to most Moslem countries, most Catholic countries,
many Protestant countries - in fact, the only safe way out would be to
limit foreign aid to openly atheistic countries. It would even
prohibit most federal domestic aid, and it would definitely defund the
OFBCI (Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), since just
about ALL their funding goes to religious organizations.
Does the United States give aid to countries where Islam, Catholicism,
or Prostestantism is a basis of citizenship?
Judaism is NOT a requirement for citizenship in Israel. There are
even Moslem members of the Knesset. Why would a country that requires
its citizens to be Jews allow Moslems to make its laws?
All Jews, anywhere in the world, are permitted to become citizens of
Israel upon arrival--simply because they are Jews.
It is one way of becoming an Israeli citizen. Other ways are birth in
the country and naturalization. The latter two are open to people of any
faith.
Israel is
officially a Jewish state. Ask them if you don't believe me. And
because Israel is a Jewish state--a state founded on and maintained by
religion--the United States is prohibited from officially supporting
or validating the religious state.
This is simply not true.
If the United States sent money to
the Vatican, the Jews would howl to high heaven.
The Vatican doesn't need the money.
If it does, then I agree
that is a violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the
judicial decisions relating to Christianity in the United States.
Not even close. It prohibits the government from doing something
whose purpose is religious, according to the Court.
Everything about Israel is religious. Why else should it exist? What
is the reason for preventing non-Jews from staying there? Why can't
Palestinians return to their prior homes in Israel, stay in their
present homes in Israel, work their farms in Israel, run a business in
Israel? It's because they are not Jews. It's because they are not of
the right religion.
If Israel is not a religious entity, but just a secular state, why
aren't the non-Jewish Palestinians automatically citizens of the
country in which they were born, in which their ancestors farmed for
centuries?
The ones who were born in Israel are. If they renounced their Israeli
citizenship, they lost it. Ancestry, as we know, has very little to do
with current rights. My family would own land in several countries, but
they were driven out, and any rights were lost.
Why did the Jews chase the Palestinians out of Jaffa,
Acre, and Jerusalem?
War.
Israel is a bigotted religious state, a murderous racist state.
It's better than the Arab states around it. Where would you rather live?
And
it is a violation of the U.S. constitution for the United States
government to use public funds to formally fund a country based on
religion.
No it isn't. Aid to Israel supports US foreign policy. Read up on it.
Public funds should not be used to prop up governments based on Islam
or Judaism--any more than public funds should be used to support the
Vatican.
The Vatican doesn't need the money. Neither does Israel sometimes -
it's the only country ever to ask for a reduction in foreign aid.
Nothing unconstitutional if the purpose isn't religious.
Remember the Judge's ruling: it can't even look like the government is
supporting a religion.
Right. This is a good thing.
If there is a "wall" between church and state, then the wall should
apply to all churches and all religions.
The wall is that the government can't take official notice of
religion. "Make no law" doesn't mean "make a law that says no".
Tell that to the Christians who are prohibited from setting up a
nativity scene on public property.
That's proper. Jews can't set up a Hanukkah Menorah on public property
either. That's proper too. Our Constitution prohibits anything that
could be construed as support of one religion over another. Very
simple, very easy.
But some Christians do not understand that limitations on their ability
to put their religious symbols in public places protects them as much as
anybody from religious interference in public life.
If the state, local, and
federal governments in the United States cannot even give the
appearance of recognizing Christianity, the dominant religion among
the people of the United States, then those same governments cannot
give the appearance of recognizing Judaism by financially supporting a
foreign state based on Judaism.
It's not "recognizing" Judaism, any more than it's "recognizing" Islam
by giving aid to Saudi Arabia, although there are no non-Moslems
making law in Saudi. It's ignoring religion, which is what the
Constitution requires.
The U.S. buy oil from Saudi Arabia--it doesn't give the Saudis aid.
But if it did, it would violate the constitution.
By sending billions to Israel every year
The US gives more foreign aid to Islamic countries than it gives to
Israel.
Then it should stop. It's unconstitutional.
It's not because it is not religious in nature - it supports US foreign
policy.
Aid to Israel,
loans to Israel, arms to Israel, financial help of any kind to Israel,
is forbidden by the U.S. constitution. Either that, or the Amendment
must reinterpreted to allow the U.S. government to at least assist
Christian and other religious entities within the United States.
Or the US must obey the law, which says that giving foreign aid to a
sovereign nation is legal, regardless of what its major religion is,
but that giving religious aid to people in the US is prohibited.
What kind of law is it that prohibits Christians from expressing their
religion on public property, but allows public funds by the billions
go to support a Judaic state in the Middle East?
It's a Jewish State. And Israel allows anyone, regardless of religion,
to become a naturalized citizen. Israeli citizenship can also be gained
by being born there, regardless of ethnic or religious affiliation.
Think of the good
that could be accomplished if the United States gave those billions to
the Catholic church to help destitute and down-on-their-luck
Americans.
That would violate our Constitution.
Like the money annually lavished on Israel, the grants
wouldn't be for "religious" purposes; it would be to help the poor.
In 2004, Iraq was currently the largest recipient of foreign aid at
$33B, followed by Israel at $8B, then Afghanistan and Egypt at $2B each.
It would appear that we are favoring Moslem countries.
See http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/foreign_commerce_aid/foreign_aid/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
30 Mar 2007 11:17:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:41:05 GMT, cactus <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote:
In 2004, Iraq was currently the largest recipient of foreign aid at
$33B
Direct foreign aid. If you add in the cost of the war, which is being
waged SOLELY to shore up a completely religious state (that part of it
that's not being waged to increase Cheney's net worth), you're way
over that.
It would appear that we are favoring Moslem countries.
And always have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "human" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
25 Mar 2007 07:39:03 AM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2007, snakehawk wrote:
On Mar 25, 7:08 am, human <h...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
Tell that to the citizens of San Diego who have fought the courts for over
17 years in the matter of the illegal, unconstitutional cross atop Mt.
Soledad.
God may not need monuments, but apparently He needs a country. The
U.S. government has been financing a religious enclave in the Middle
East for over 60 years amounting to hundreds of billions of taxpayers'
dollars. If the judge was right about the constitutional prohibitions
against even the appearance of validating any religion, then the
annual tribute to the religious state of Israel, a state founded on
biblical passages where citizenship is based on religious affiliation,
is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Point well taken.
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State ConstitutionsFederal Court rules |
23 Mar 2007 03:29:37 PM |
|
|
zzpat wrote:
God doesn't need monuments.
You have to be careful here. Some of them do, some of them
don't. It's not like gods form a consensus, or something.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Displaying Christian Cross violated Federal, State Constitutions Federal Court rules |
23 Mar 2007 03:49:17 PM |
|
|
In article <1174681783.97664@ucsnew2.ncl.ac.uk> "chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> writes:
zzpat wrote:
God doesn't need monuments.
You have to be careful here. Some of them do, some of them
don't. It's not like gods form a consensus, or something.
Worse than that: some gods don't like other gods having
monuments. Witness the Tailban's artistic slash-and-burn
in Afghanistan.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
