Religions > Atheism > HAVE PRESIDENT BUSH, FIRST LADY AND REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE JOINED 'WAR ON CHRISTMAS'?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
02 Dec 2005 01:04:55 PM |
| Object: |
HAVE PRESIDENT BUSH, FIRST LADY AND REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE JOINED 'WAR ON CHRISTMAS'? |
For Immediate Release
November 30, 2005
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Contact: Joe Conn, Rob Boston or Jeremy Leaming
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=Jg5EJQwo1U9RDbj66x5h7A..
HAVE PRESIDENT BUSH, FIRST LADY AND REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE JOINED
'WAR ON CHRISTMAS'?
Americans United Asks Jerry Falwell Why He Hasn't Objected To White
House's Holiday Greetings
The Rev. Jerry Falwell and his Religious Right cohorts have been
complaining for weeks now about government agencies and store clerks saying
"Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" but it looks like Falwell
forgot to tell President George W. Bush, First Lady Laura Bush and the
Republican National Committee about the preferred religiously correct
greeting.
The White House's 2005 holiday card is just out, and it doesn't mention the
word "Christmas" once.
The card, mailed under the auspices of the Republican National Committee
and signed by the president and his wife, reads, "With best wishes for a
holiday season of hope and happiness 2005." It also includes a passage from
the Old Testament Book of Psalms.
The front cover is an artist's rendition of the White House and grounds
covered with snow while the presidential pets, two dogs and a cat, frolic
on the lawn. It contains no religious symbolism.
"Have President Bush and the first lady joined the so-called war on
Christmas?" asked the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans
United. "Where are the howls of protest from Jerry Falwell? When will he
stand up and save Christmas from this mean-spirited, anti-God attack?"
Lynn noted that Laura Bush piled on Monday during a White House ceremony
unveiling a Christmas tree remarking, "Well, 'all things bright and
beautiful' is the theme this year. I think it will be really bright and
beautiful with this fabulous tree. But thank you all very much. Happy
holidays."
Asserted Lynn, "Laura Bush said, 'Happy Holidays.' This is intolerable!
Where is Jerry Falwell?"
Two weeks before Halloween, Falwell attorneys called a press conference and
threatened to sue public schools and government agencies that fail to
acknowledge Christmas to Falwell's liking. They have also been complaining
about department stores and malls using "Happy Holidays" signs and
greetings.
Most recently, Falwell went ballistic when the city of Boston issued a
press release announcing the arrival of its "holiday tree." Fox News
Channel commentator Bill O'Reilly has jumped on the bandwagon, carping
nearly every night about the alleged "war on Christmas."
Lynn noted that Falwell and O'Reilly have yet to say one word about the
president and first lady's generic holiday greetings.
"Falwell calls his Christmas crusade 'Friend or Foe,'" Lynn remarked. "He
believes you either agree with him or you're an enemy. When is he going to
take on his latest foes the president and Mrs. Bush?"
Added Lynn, "In all seriousness, I think Falwell ought to be ashamed of
himself. He's using the season of peace and love to advance his
narrow-minded political agenda, stir up community hostility and raise
money. Just when I think he can go no lower, he surprises me and does.
"And for the record," Lynn continued, "Americans United has never attacked
Christmas. There is no war on Christmas. Americans are perfectly free to
observe Christmas if they choose to do so. However, we do insist that
government obey the Constitution and refrain from promoting religion."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington,
D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the
importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: HAVE PRESIDENT BUSH, FIRST LADY AND REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE JOINED 'WAR ON CHRISTMAS'? |
02 Dec 2005 02:11:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:04, wrote:
Two weeks before Halloween, Falwell attorneys called a press conference and
threatened to sue public schools and government agencies that fail to
acknowledge Christmas to Falwell's liking. They have also been complaining
about department stores and malls using "Happy Holidays" signs and
greetings.
----------
Yeah and this scam is going around for the 8,921,346th time:
Please continue its success by carefully adhering to the
instructions. In this business your product is not solid and
tangible, it's a service. You are in the business of developing
Mailing Lists. Many large corporations are happy to pay big bucks
for quality lists. However, the money made from the mailing lists
is secondary to the income which is made from people like you and
me asking to be included in that list. Here are the 4 easy steps to
success . . . .
----------
Falwell and a Ponzi scheme:
"It's beginning to look a lot
like Christmas."
++ gray
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: HAVE PRESIDENT BUSH, FIRST LADY AND REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE JOINED 'WAR ON CHRISTMAS'?; unfocused reference to the Constitution |
02 Dec 2005 02:50:59 PM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
<snipped for brevity>
"And for the record," Lynn continued, "Americans United has never attacked
Christmas. There is no war on Christmas. Americans are perfectly free to
observe Christmas if they choose to do so. However, we do insist that
government obey the Constitution and refrain from promoting religion."
Mr. Lynn's general reference to the Constitution sidesteps the fact
that only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment. Otherwise, neither
the Constitution or any federal law that says that federal government
exployees cannot say Merry Christmas, or other religious greeting.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washingto=
n,
D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the
importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
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 =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . 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. Eisne=
r,
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)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
02 Dec 2005 04:02:21 PM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 12:50:59 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Lynn's general reference to the Constitution sidesteps the fact
that only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment.
Ya poor sap, freddie
You think that a state can pass a law abridging the
freedom of the press?
.
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
02 Dec 2005 04:25:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 12:50:59 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Lynn's general reference to the Constitution sidesteps the fact
that only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment.
Ya poor sap, freddie
You think that a state can pass a law abridging the
freedom of the press?
Heck, under Fred's "reasoning", a state could prohibit the free
exercise of any faith it didn't care for, since only Congress can
violate the Free Exercise Clause.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
02 Dec 2005 11:08:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 12:50:59 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Lynn's general reference to the Constitution sidesteps the fact
that only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment.
Ya poor sap, freddie
You think that a state can pass a law abridging the
freedom of the press?
You've still got the wires crossed - you evidently WANT the wires to be
crossed - as the 1st Amendment obviously doesn't say anything about
prohibiting the States like the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th Amendments
do, for example, but particlarly the 14th Amendment:
"Article 14, section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You want the wires crossed as evidenced by your insistance on the
strained, politically correct, anti-religious expression interpretation
of the 14th Amendment, one of the three amendments relevant to free
religious speech. You ignore that while the 1st Amendment explicitly
prohibits only Congress from making certain kinds of laws, religious
laws for example, the 14th doesn't indicate types of laws but instead
puts a general limit on ALL the laws that the States can make; no state
law can abridge the personal federal rights of US citizens. You also
ignore that the 14th did not take away the 10th protected sovereign
powers of the States as evidenced by the fact that the 14th doesn't
mention the 10th. So regardless that anti-religious expression king
Justices have misled the States to believe otherwise, the States do
have the power to legislate religion as long as such laws do not
abridge the personal federal rights of US citizens.
For example, as I've mentioned MANY times before, the States have the
power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th)
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution, creationism
and irreducible complexity, for example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 10:00:59 AM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2005 21:08:42 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 12:50:59 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Lynn's general reference to the Constitution sidesteps the fact
that only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment.
Ya poor sap, freddie
You think that a state can pass a law abridging the
freedom of the press?
You've still got the wires crossed -
No, freddie, it's you who have them crossed
The Bill of rights protects ALL citizens, living
anywhere.
States cannot pass laws that abrogate those guaranteed
by the constitution.
For example, as I've mentioned MANY times before, the States have the
power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th)
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution, creationism
and irreducible complexity, for example.
Nope, they don't
Government schools CAN "teach" those classes in a
PHILOSOPHY venue--not as a science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 09:31:19 AM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 2 Dec 2005 12:50:59 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Lynn's general reference to the Constitution sidesteps the fact
that only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment.
Ya poor sap, freddie
You think that a state can pass a law abridging the
freedom of the press?
You've still got the wires crossed - you evidently WANT the wires to be
crossed - as the 1st Amendment obviously doesn't say anything about
prohibiting the States like the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th Amendments
do, for example, but particlarly the 14th Amendment:
"Article 14, section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You want the wires crossed as evidenced by your insistance on the
strained, politically correct, anti-religious expression interpretation
of the 14th Amendment, one of the three amendments relevant to free
religious speech. You ignore that while the 1st Amendment explicitly
prohibits only Congress from making certain kinds of laws, religious
laws for example, the 14th doesn't indicate types of laws but instead
puts a general limit on ALL the laws that the States can make; no state
law can abridge the personal federal rights of US citizens. You also
ignore that the 14th did not take away the 10th protected sovereign
powers of the States as evidenced by the fact that the 14th doesn't
mention the 10th. So regardless that anti-religious expression king
Justices have misled the States to believe otherwise, the States do
have the power to legislate religion as long as such laws do not
abridge the personal federal rights of US citizens.
For example, as I've mentioned MANY times before, the States have the
power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th)
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution, creationism
and irreducible complexity, for example.
Note how Freddie runs like a scalded cat from the question that was
asked. He's obviously unwilling to admit that the logical extension of
his position is that States can violate free press, free speech, free
association, and the free exercise of religion any time they wish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 10:02:07 AM |
|
|
On 3 Dec 2005 07:31:19 -0800, "cpt banjo"
<cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:
fred wrote:
Mr. Lynn's general reference to the Constitution sidesteps the fact
that only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment.
Note how Freddie runs like a scalded cat from the question that was
asked. He's obviously unwilling to admit that the logical extension of
his position is that States can violate free press, free speech, free
association, and the free exercise of religion any time they wish.
Noted
(ROFLMAO)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 12:06:16 PM |
|
|
cpt banjo wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
For example, as I've mentioned MANY times before, the States have the
power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th)
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution, creationism
and irreducible complexity, for example.
Note how Freddie runs like a scalded cat from the question that was
asked. He's obviously unwilling to admit that the logical extension of
his position is that States can violate free press, free speech, free
association, and the free exercise of religion any time they wish.
No, the 14th prohibits the States from using their powers, including
their 10th protected sovereign powers, to abridge personal federal
rights of US citizens. But as I've mentioned MANY times before, and
regardless that anti-religious expression people like cpt banjo and
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 01:03:25 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "wjyoung" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
04 Dec 2005 12:26:26 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
No. How would you answer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
04 Dec 2005 08:32:09 AM |
|
|
wjyoung wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
No. How would you answer?
Yes. Heck, even fred answered yes!
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "wjyoung" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
07 Dec 2005 12:04:31 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
wjyoung wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
No. How would you answer?
Yes. Heck, even fred answered yes!
Are you, either of you, able to show where or explain how the 14th does
this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
07 Dec 2005 08:08:16 AM |
|
|
wjyoung wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
wjyoung wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
No. How would you answer?
Yes. Heck, even fred answered yes!
Are you, either of you, able to show where or explain how the 14th does
this?
The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion - an
individual right - from abridgement by the federal government. fred
and I agree the 14th (in either the Privileges and Immunities clause,
or the Due Process clause) extends the protection of individual rights
guaranteed previously in the Constitution to all levels of government -
and thus all levels of government must allow free exercise of religion.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wjyoung" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
08 Dec 2005 09:54:10 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
wjyoung wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
No. How would you answer?
Yes. Heck, even fred answered yes!
By the way, why would you be asking fred this question if he already
agreed? And why would you ask fred this question if you already knew
the answer? I wonder, are you manipulating fred? Regardless, do you
understand that whether you and fred agree is irrelevant to the question
of whether the 14th prohibits such?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
08 Dec 2005 10:01:53 PM |
|
|
wjyoung wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
wjyoung wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
No. How would you answer?
Yes. Heck, even fred answered yes!
By the way, why would you be asking fred this question if he already agreed?
Because, I didn't know what his opinion was until I asked him.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
08 Dec 2005 11:24:51 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
wjyoung wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
No. How would you answer?
Yes. Heck, even fred answered yes!
Consider that the people in the crowds that Jesus preached to were free
to walk away.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 02:08:49 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
The 14th reasonably prohibits mandatory religious related discussions,
in my opinion. And as Justice Reed noted, it is actually the Court's
job, even though anti-religious expression Justices don't do it, to
balance the 10th protected sovereign powers of the States with 14th
protected personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
Also note that I actually disagree with Jefferson's remark suggesting
that religion classes should be deemed requisite:
"Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of
natural philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low."
-- Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 02:17:04 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
The 14th reasonably prohibits mandatory religious related discussions,
in my opinion.
Why? That is, distinguish why the 14th prohibits mandatory discussions
but not non-mandatory discussions.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 02:58:16 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
The 14th reasonably prohibits mandatory religious related discussions,
in my opinion.
Why? That is, distinguish why the 14th prohibits mandatory discussions
but not non-mandatory discussions.
If I understand your concern correctly, I think that able children MUST
be taught how to read and write, for example, regardless of excuses for
not wanting them to have basic skills. On the other hand, there is no
sense in requiring Christian children to be denied their 1st protected
religious freedoms by being forced to learn more about Muslimism in
public schools than the public schools are willing to teach them about
Christianity, for example.
The bottom line is that you could have reasonably answered your own
question about the 14th simply by applying a little common sense:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at
New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
I gather from your question that common sense interpretations of the
laws are evidently discouraged among anti-religious expression
factions.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 03:12:07 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
The 14th reasonably prohibits mandatory religious related discussions,
in my opinion.
Why? That is, distinguish why the 14th prohibits mandatory discussions
but not non-mandatory discussions.
If I understand your concern correctly, I think that able children MUST
be taught how to read and write, for example, regardless of excuses for
not wanting them to have basic skills. On the other hand, there is no
sense in requiring Christian children to be denied their 1st protected
religious freedoms by being forced to learn more about Muslimism in
public schools than the public schools are willing to teach them about
Christianity, for example.
I don't think you understood my question. Let me rephrase by slightly
changing your hypothetical.
On the one hand, you say a public school cannot require a Muslim child
to participate in a teacher-lead Christianity lesson because of the 1st
Amendment, incorporated through the 14th.
But on the other hand, you say a public school can allow teachers to
lead Christianity lessons so long as Muslim children are given the
option of not participating. Why isn't an optional Christianity lesson
also prohibited because of the 1st, incorporated through the 14th?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 05:38:51 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
knickkkers don't want to hear it anyway, the States nonetheless have
the power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory
(14th) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution,
creationism and irreducible complexity, for example.
Does the 14th prohibit mandatory discussions?
The 14th reasonably prohibits mandatory religious related discussions,
in my opinion.
Why? That is, distinguish why the 14th prohibits mandatory discussions
but not non-mandatory discussions.
If I understand your concern correctly, I think that able children MUST
be taught how to read and write, for example, regardless of excuses for
not wanting them to have basic skills. On the other hand, there is no
sense in requiring Christian children to be denied their 1st protected
religious freedoms by being forced to learn more about Muslimism in
public schools than the public schools are willing to teach them about
Christianity, for example.
I don't think you understood my question. Let me rephrase by slightly
changing your hypothetical.
On the one hand, you say a public school cannot require a Muslim child
to participate in a teacher-lead Christianity lesson because of the 1st
Amendment, incorporated through the 14th.
But on the other hand, you say a public school can allow teachers to
lead Christianity lessons so long as Muslim children are given the
option of not participating. Why isn't an optional Christianity lesson
also prohibited because of the 1st, incorporated through the 14th?
Josh Rosenbluth
Bravo! Finally a reasonable reply compared to certain other posters.
As to why Christian classes are not constitutionally prohibited,
consider that 14th Amendment does not address the division of
governments powers as defined by the 1st and 10th. This is evidenced
by the fact that the 14th doesn't mention the 10th at all and only
implies the personal rights of the 1st with respect to personal federal
rights (priviledges and immunities). So the 14th does not address the
reasonable conclusion that the 10th reserved the power to legislate
religion to the States since the 1st explicitly prohibits this power
only to Congress (federal government; aka United States).
Also, I have repeatedly stated that the 14th doesn't limit state
government powers in the same way that the 1st limits federal
government powers. Whereas the 1st explicitly prohibits certain
federal government powers, the power to legislate religion for example,
the 14th doesn't explicitly prohibit any particular power. The
applicable part of the 14th simply puts a general limit on ALL the laws
that the States can make. The 14th only prohibits the States from
using their 10th protected powers to make laws, laws that deal with
religious issues for example, when such laws abridge personal federal
rights. This is why I have been careful to mention the constitutional
authority (10th) of the States concerning non-mandatory public school
religious classes in conjunction with 14th personal federal
protections.
The problem is that the corrupt, anti-religious expression Court is
claiming the absurdities that the 14th is not only a self-incriminating
admission of incompetence by the States, but also an implicit
surrendering of constitutionally delegated State powers to the federal
government:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." -- Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.
Claiming that the 14th has rendered the States incompentent is nothing
more than a slick way to sidestep the fact that the States are the ones
who authorized the 14th in the first place. But the States would never
have incriminated themelves by claiming incompetance and voluntarily
surrendered power to the federal government, especially the States who
had been respecting personal federal rights all along. The Cantwell
opinion is probably the best example of corrupt Justices unlawfully
legislating from the bench by rigging a case precedent.
Yes, before the 14th was made, some States abused their powers by
abridging personal federal rights; doing so culminated in the Civil
War. But regardless that anti-religious expression factions are now
seemingly insisting on the absurdity that the mere existance of
religious laws is evil and an automatic violation of their personal
federal rights, they ignore that many States had been balancing their
10th protected sovereign powers with personal federal rights on their
own initiative, without needing the 14th to tell them to do so.
The bottom line concerning why the 14th doesn't apply the 1st's
prohibitions on federal government powers to the States, however, is
that you shouldn't have to ask such questions in the first place. The
problem is that, as opposed to simply applying common sense for an
honest interpretation of the relevant amendments, you are essentially
letting your anti-religious expression "friends" make up your mind for
you about the basic meaning of these amendments. Again, here's
Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the Constitution:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at
New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 06:02:49 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On the one hand, you say a public school cannot require a Muslim child
to participate in a teacher-lead Christianity lesson because of the 1st
Amendment, incorporated through the 14th.
But on the other hand, you say a public school can allow teachers to
lead Christianity lessons so long as Muslim children are given the
option of not participating. Why isn't an optional Christianity lesson
also prohibited because of the 1st, incorporated through the 14th?
I have repeatedly stated that the 14th doesn't limit state
government powers in the same way that the 1st limits federal
government powers. Whereas the 1st explicitly prohibits certain
federal government powers, the power to legislate religion for example,
the 14th doesn't explicitly prohibit any particular power. The
applicable part of the 14th simply puts a general limit on ALL the laws
that the States can make. The 14th only prohibits the States from
using their 10th protected powers to make laws, laws that deal with
religious issues for example, when such laws abridge personal federal
rights.
Are you arguing that a mandatory public-school Christianity class
abridges a personal freedom, but an optional public-school Christianity
class does not? If so, how do you reach that conclusion?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 08:11:58 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On the one hand, you say a public school cannot require a Muslim child
to participate in a teacher-lead Christianity lesson because of the 1st
Amendment, incorporated through the 14th.
But on the other hand, you say a public school can allow teachers to
lead Christianity lessons so long as Muslim children are given the
option of not participating. Why isn't an optional Christianity lesson
also prohibited because of the 1st, incorporated through the 14th?
I have repeatedly stated that the 14th doesn't limit state
government powers in the same way that the 1st limits federal
government powers. Whereas the 1st explicitly prohibits certain
federal government powers, the power to legislate religion for example,
the 14th doesn't explicitly prohibit any particular power. The
applicable part of the 14th simply puts a general limit on ALL the laws
that the States can make. The 14th only prohibits the States from
using their 10th protected powers to make laws, laws that deal with
religious issues for example, when such laws abridge personal federal
rights.
Are you arguing that a mandatory public-school Christianity class
abridges a personal freedom, but an optional public-school Christianity
class does not? If so, how do you reach that conclusion?
Josh Rosenbluth
The reasonable answer to such a question seems obvious so please be
patient if I fail to address your question.
In the case of mandatory public school Christianity classes, the Muslim
families obviously don't have a choice with respect to taking them, for
example; a 1st violation of their religious beliefs. But when such
classes are optional, hey, the Muslims can opt to take Muslim classes,
or choose no religious class, whatever.
Again, in my opinion the 10th reasonably guarantees that public schools
can teach religious classes while the 14th reasonably guarantees that
students can choose to opt out of classes which reasonably offend their
religious beliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
04 Dec 2005 05:11:55 PM |
|
|
On 3 Dec 2005 18:11:58 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
In the case of mandatory public school Christianity classes, the Muslim
families obviously don't have a choice with respect to taking them, for
example; a 1st violation of their religious beliefs. But when such
classes are optional, hey, the Muslims can opt to take Muslim classes,
or choose no religious class, whatever.
Schools cannot mandate religious classes of any kind
Schools are government
Government cannot establish or embrace religion
Schools are free to discuss religion in a philosophical
setting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 08:37:39 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On the one hand, you say a public school cannot require a Muslim child
to participate in a teacher-lead Christianity lesson because of the 1st
Amendment, incorporated through the 14th.
But on the other hand, you say a public school can allow teachers to
lead Christianity lessons so long as Muslim children are given the
option of not participating. Why isn't an optional Christianity lesson
also prohibited because of the 1st, incorporated through the 14th?
I have repeatedly stated that the 14th doesn't limit state
government powers in the same way that the 1st limits federal
government powers. Whereas the 1st explicitly prohibits certain
federal government powers, the power to legislate religion for example,
the 14th doesn't explicitly prohibit any particular power. The
applicable part of the 14th simply puts a general limit on ALL the laws
that the States can make. The 14th only prohibits the States from
using their 10th protected powers to make laws, laws that deal with
religious issues for example, when such laws abridge personal federal
rights.
Are you arguing that a mandatory public-school Christianity class
abridges a personal freedom, but an optional public-school Christianity
class does not? If so, how do you reach that conclusion?
The reasonable answer to such a question seems obvious so please be
patient if I fail to address your question.
In the case of mandatory public school Christianity classes, the Muslim
families obviously don't have a choice with respect to taking them, for
example; a 1st violation of their religious beliefs. But when such
classes are optional, hey, the Muslims can opt to take Muslim classes,
or choose no religious class, whatever.
IMO, it is a reasonable conclusion that anybody who refuses to
participate in the Christianity classes faces scorn by the community.
That gives them two bad choices, both of which are a loss of personal
liberty prohibited by the 14th.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 09:47:29 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
In the case of mandatory public school Christianity classes, the Muslim
families obviously don't have a choice with respect to taking them, for
example; a 1st violation of their religious beliefs. But when such
classes are optional, hey, the Muslims can opt to take Muslim classes,
or choose no religious class, whatever.
IMO, it is a reasonable conclusion that anybody who refuses to
participate in the Christianity classes faces scorn by the community.
That gives them two bad choices, both of which are a loss of personal
liberty prohibited by the 14th.
Josh Rosenbluth
Thank you for your hypothetical concern about Christians violating your
14th protected personal liberties.
The problem is that since the State didn't make a law which violated
your 14th protections, you're not complaining about a 14th issue per
se, although you would have a reasonable gripe concerning any
harassment. Also consider that since Titus 3:1-2 teaches Christians
not to be mean to people that your gripe wouldn't necessarily be
against true Christians either. But whoever these harassers would be,
by all means take them to court!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
03 Dec 2005 10:09:19 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
In the case of mandatory public school Christianity classes, the Muslim
families obviously don't have a choice with respect to taking them, for
example; a 1st violation of their religious beliefs. But when such
classes are optional, hey, the Muslims can opt to take Muslim classes,
or choose no religious class, whatever.
IMO, it is a reasonable conclusion that anybody who refuses to
participate in the Christianity classes faces scorn by the community.
That gives them two bad choices, both of which are a loss of personal
liberty prohibited by the 14th.
Thank you for your hypothetical concern about Christians violating your
14th protected personal liberties.
The problem is that since the State didn't make a law which violated
your 14th protections, you're not complaining about a 14th issue per
se, although you would have a reasonable gripe concerning any
harassment.
I'm not persuaded. A non-believer in the religion being taught is
coerced into taking the putatively voluntary class. Such coercion
violates religious liberty.
Moreover, the class also disadvantages those who don't practice the
religion being taught, which violates the Equal Protection clause of the
14th as well.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
04 Dec 2005 01:00:44 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
In the case of mandatory public school Christianity classes, the Muslim
families obviously don't have a choice with respect to taking them, for
example; a 1st violation of their religious beliefs. But when such
classes are optional, hey, the Muslims can opt to take Muslim classes,
or choose no religious class, whatever.
IMO, it is a reasonable conclusion that anybody who refuses to
participate in the Christianity classes faces scorn by the community.
That gives them two bad choices, both of which are a loss of personal
liberty prohibited by the 14th.
Thank you for your hypothetical concern about Christians violating your
14th protected personal liberties.
The problem is that since the State didn't make a law which violated
your 14th protections, you're not complaining about a 14th issue per
se, although you would have a reasonable gripe concerning any
harassment.
I'm not persuaded. A non-believer in the religion being taught is
coerced into taking the putatively voluntary class. Such coercion
violates religious liberty.
You're not being reasonable.
Non believers will just have to start concealing audio recorders on
their person and play back unsolicited confrontations to enroll in such
classes for the judge.
Moreover, the class also disadvantages those who don't practice the
religion being taught, which violates the Equal Protection clause of the
14th as well.
Give me some examples of how people will be disadvantaged. On second
thought, never mind. You're looking for excuses to make the
Constitution not work. My "compliments" to whomever did your
anti-religious expression brainwashing.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Freddies getting dingier by the day......... |
04 Dec 2005 01:16:18 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
fred wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
In the case of mandatory public school Christianity classes, the Muslim
families obviously don't have a choice with respect to taking them, for
example; a 1st violation of their religious beliefs. But when such
classes are optional, hey, the Muslims can opt to take Muslim classes,
or choose no religious class, whatever.
IMO, it is a reasonable conclusion that anybody who refuses to
participate in the Christianity classes faces scorn by the community.
That gives them two bad choices, both of which are a loss of personal
liberty prohibited by the 14th.
Thank you for your hypothetical concern about Christians violating your
14th protected personal liberties.
The problem is that since the State didn't make a law which violated
your 14th protections, you're not complaining about a 14th issue per
se, although you would have a reasonable gripe concerning any
harassment.
I'm not persuaded. A non-believer in the religion being taught is
coerced into taking the putatively voluntary class. Such coercion
violates religious liberty.
You're not being reasonable.
Non believers will just have to start concealing audio recorders on
their person and play back unsolicited confrontations to enroll in such
classes for the judge.
The coercion is in the form of implicit community pressure to conform,
not a direct threat.
Moreover, the class also disadvantages those who don't practice the
religion being taught, which violates the Equal Protection clause of the
14th as well.
Give me some examples of how people will be disadvantaged.
A Muslim has to fork over his own money on his own time to study his
religion. A Christian uses the public dollar on the public schools'
time to study his religion.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
