| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 03:02:05 AM |
| Object: |
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
For 25 of more years the other side has had a monopoly on word games and no
one has called them on it, effectively challenged them on it. They have
managed to turn liberal into a bad word, even moderate has been made
suspicious. Managed to make Democrat a bad word. Managed to turn equal
rights for a minority group into gay rights or special rights. Those are
just a few examples.
Now they are doing the same thing with the courts. They are using words
again to mislead, misrepresent and lie.
Make no mistake about it, judicial activism means any court ruling they do
not like. It has absolutely no other meaning and it appears once more that
no one has the balls to call them on it and keep calling them on it until
that fact finally cancels their dishonest word playing.
Case in point. Last night on Lou Dobbs I heard, either Dobbs or one of his
talking heads use judicial activism in reference to the District Court
pledge ruling. Dobbs also tossed the usual ***** zinger at the 9th
Circuit as he ended that segment of his show by saying the 9th Circuit, the
most liberal Circuit in the country and also the most overturned Circuit
on the country.
I never realized Dobs was a talking head for the right, he should be on Fox
instead of CNN or maybe CNN is in their pocket as well.
Another example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/national/14cnd-pledge.html
But it had immediate emotional impact. "This is an extraordinary and
blatant display of judicial activism," Kay Daly, president of the Coalition
for a Fair Judiciary, said in a statement issued here.
The American Center for Law and Justice had a similar reaction. "The pledge
clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from
God, not government, and we're hopeful this flawed decision will ultimately
be rejected," said Jay Sekulow, the organization's chief counsel.
The fact of the mater is the original 9th Circuit ruling is the correct
ruling. Absolutely no Judges or ruling handed down since then has honestly
and in detail refuted that ruling, not even the recent 4th Circuit ruling
upholding the pledge in schools
***************************************************************
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 SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
23 Sep 2005 09:07:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:45:15 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
And I could argue that if people don't want "under God"
in the Pledge, they are free to choose private schools
that don't say the Pledge or that exclude those words
from it, but I'm sure you wouldn't view that freedom to
choose as sufficient to protect their rights either.
The government isn't allowed to involve itself in religious
matters. Allowing it to do so in violation of the Constitution
while telling everyone who doesn't like it to ***** off is *not*
an acceptable alternative.
The problem is, when government says, "You can't
practice religion the way you want to in this large part of
your life unless you pay thousands of dollars extra to
choose something different that is no more expensive to
produce," government IS involving itself in religious
matters.
....except that what has really been said is that government
may not involve itself in religious exercises. The fact that you
think government involvement in religion can somehow be
redefined as "not allowing people to practice their
religion"--the explicit argument that freedom of religion
amounts to your right to have the goverment endorse your
religious views--doesn't mean there's ANY rational reason
for doing so. Your tail-chasing word-games don't advance
your argument--or, indeed, any argument--even a millimeter.
It is no longer families that decide what is best for their
children's lives regarding religious matters duriing school
hours, but instead is government
"Families" NEVER decided "what is best for their children's
lives regarding religious matters during school hours"--that
was ALWAYS a government decision, and one offensive
to the constitution.
- except in the cases of the small percentage of families
who value their freedom so much that they are willing to
pay thousands of dollars a year extra or give up a
comparable value in time in order to keep their freedom.
If they view their inability to force their religion on others via
the state as such a sleight that they would actually put their
children in private schools, they deserve every penny of the
new expense.
You don't regard the freedom that is harmed as important.
No "freedom" is being harmed in this scenario at all.
Religious liberty, otoh, is one of the most important freedoms
we have.
Purely from a personal perspective, that is your prerogative.
But when it is clear that other families regard the freedom as
so important that they are willing to make major sacrifices, if
government takes your position, the result is to establish your
religious views (or views regarding religion) and those of
other people who dismiss the types of religious freedom
involved as irrelevant in a very heavily favored position at
the expense of religious groups, factions, and families that
regard the types of religious freedom involved as important.
No "religous freedoms" are involved in what you suggest. None
whatsoever. You can say it a million more times and it won't
make it any more so. Government takes "my" position--which is
to say, neutrality--because that's the process adopted in the
United States. One day, you may be victorious in flushing
the religious liberty you seem to so disdain right down the
john, but today isn't that day.
The coming together of diverse religious traditions
is a necessary side-effect of a public school system.
If you think I or anyone else advocates a public
school system only because we get some sort of
jollies out of using it to deny to someone religious
freedom, you're as dumb as a box of rocks.
I know beyond all doubt that there are people who
like the idea of using the public system as an excuse
to keep children out of religious schools.
Whatever.
The fact that you are on the same side as they
are, and are cavalierly dismissing any possible
relevance for religious people's concerns just as
they do, makes your motives highly suspect.
You don't have to "suspect" me; I'll confess my
complicity right up front: I'm in with the Jews, the
Freemasons, and the Trilateral Commission. My posts
here and elsewhere are just a part of the regular
propaganda in which our conspiracy engages. I'm
merely a low-level agent, so the unveiling of my
identity in this manner is of no real concern to my
superiors. No one here will believe I'm telling the
truth. That's the real secret of my power.
Interesting. It would seem that I wasn't anywhere near
as suspicious as I should have been.
That's another of the secrets of my power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
24 Sep 2005 06:54:29 PM |
|
|
"classicliberal2" <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:ofa9j1leaeevjdcq9ba19eagqlo94epi1f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:45:15 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
The problem is, when government says, "You can't
practice religion the way you want to in this large part of
your life unless you pay thousands of dollars extra to
choose something different that is no more expensive to
produce," government IS involving itself in religious
matters.
...except that what has really been said is that government
may not involve itself in religious exercises.
The First Amendment says only, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion," not, "Congress shall make no law that can
possibly be construed as involving government in religious exercise in any
way, no matter how indirect.:"
The key question with regard to establishment is whether or not government
involves itself in our religious CHOICES. If government policies encourage
people to make one choice when their religion (or atheistic philosophy)
tells them that they should make a different choice, or gives people who
make some religious choices a financial advantage over those who make
others, that has the effect of establishing religious groups and factions
that like the choice government promotes in a favored position over those
that prefer any different choice. That is true even when the choice in
question is a choice to refrain from practicing religion in particular ways
in particular portions of people's lives, because government establishes
religious groups and factions that are happy excluding those religious
practices from those portions of their lives or their children's lives in a
favored position over other groups and factions that regard the religious
activities in question as important.
In contrast, if government provides equal benefits without regard to what
religious choices people make, the fact that some people may choose to use
those benefits for religious purposes does not constitute an attempt by
government to establish religion. The only thing government establishes
through its involvement is the freedom to choose without government using
its financial involvement as an excuse to interfere in people's religious
choices.
The fact that you
think government involvement in religion can somehow be
redefined as "not allowing people to practice their
religion"--the explicit argument that freedom of religion
amounts to your right to have the goverment endorse your
religious views--doesn't mean there's ANY rational reason
for doing so.
It is not an endorsement when all government does is leave people free to
choose without treating people differently as a result of their choices.
Nor is it an endorsement when government merely refuses to interfere with
natural demographic factors in order to make smaller groups better off at
the expense of larger groups' freedom. What you want is an explicit
government endorsement for the exclusion of organized religion from large
portions of children's lives, with the endorsement backed up by massive
financial favoritism.
It is no longer families that decide what is best for their
children's lives regarding religious matters duriing school
hours, but instead is government
"Families" NEVER decided "what is best for their children's
lives regarding religious matters during school hours"--that
was ALWAYS a government decision, and one offensive
to the constitution.
How far back are you looking? Are you looking back to the time before
public school systems were developed?
- except in the cases of the small percentage of families
who value their freedom so much that they are willing to
pay thousands of dollars a year extra or give up a
comparable value in time in order to keep their freedom.
If they view their inability to force their religion on others via
the state as such a sleight that they would actually put their
children in private schools, they deserve every penny of the
new expense.
This is one of the most bigoted and absurd statements that I've ever seen.
You're so caught up in your idea that the only reason why religious peoplke
might possibly want religion in their children's schools is as an excuse to
force their religion onto others that you refuse to even consider the
possibility that families' desire to have religion in their own children's
education could be sincere.
You don't regard the freedom that is harmed as important.
No "freedom" is being harmed in this scenario at all.
Religious liberty, otoh, is one of the most important freedoms
we have.
If you truly believed that religious liberty is so important, you would
respect other people's religious liberty even when you have a hard time
understanding why they want what they want. As things stand, you are no
more a believer in religious liberty than is a Christian who refuses to
understand how any rational person who is not rabidly anti-religious could
object to having "under God" in the Pledge in his or her child's school.
Purely from a personal perspective, that is your prerogative.
But when it is clear that other families regard the freedom as
so important that they are willing to make major sacrifices, if
government takes your position, the result is to establish your
religious views (or views regarding religion) and those of
other people who dismiss the types of religious freedom
involved as irrelevant in a very heavily favored position at
the expense of religious groups, factions, and families that
regard the types of religious freedom involved as important.
No "religous freedoms" are involved in what you suggest. None
whatsoever. You can say it a million more times and it won't
make it any more so. Government takes "my" position--which is
to say, neutrality--because that's the process adopted in the
United States. One day, you may be victorious in flushing
the religious liberty you seem to so disdain right down the
john, but today isn't that day.
There is nothing neutral about having government use tax money, much of it
collected from strongly religious people, to bribe families to keep
organized religion out of their children's schools. Your attempt to define
deliberate government interference as neutrality is appalling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
25 Sep 2005 05:25:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:54:29 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
The problem is, when government says, "You can't
practice religion the way you want to in this large part
of your life unless you pay thousands of dollars extra
to choose something different that is no more expensive
to produce," government IS involving itself in religious
matters.
...except that what has really been said is that
government may not involve itself in religious exercises.
The First Amendment says only, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion," not, "Congress
shall make no law that can possibly be construed as
involving government in religious exercise in any way, no
matter how indirect.:"
The fact that it can be interpreted in *exactly* that way--"no law" is
as absolute as it gets--is why we have courts to deal with the
ambiguities that can arise with regard to interpretation.
The key question with regard to establishment is whether
or not government involves itself in our religious CHOICES.
If government policies encourage people to make one choice
when their religion (or atheistic philosophy) tells them
that they should make a different choice, or gives people
who make some religious choices a financial advantage over
those who make others, that has the effect of establishing
religious groups and factions that like the choice
government promotes in a favored position over those that
prefer any different choice.
The "reasoning" here is so muddled as to be self-refuting, and, given
the fact that I've pretty conclusively refuted it probably a dozen
times already, I should probably just let it stand as it is. As I've
noted repeatedly, you have no "right" to have your religion endorsed
by the government in places like schools, and you aren't being
"oppressed" by being denied that official sanction. A policy of
neutrality--the very thing you've consistently denounced, here--isn't
"promoting" ANY position on religion, beyond the belief that your
religious faith is your own business and not a thing in which the
state should meddle.
It is no longer families that decide what is best for
their children's lives regarding religious matters
duriing school hours, but instead is government
"Families" NEVER decided "what is best for their
children's lives regarding religious matters during
school hours"--that was ALWAYS a government decision,
and one offensive to the constitution.
How far back are you looking? Are you looking back to
the time before public school systems were developed?
At any point in the public schools' history. "Families" have NEVER
decided these matters. A plurality of voters--not "families"--elect
the people to government who appoint the bureacrats who have been
responsible for the attempts to involve government in religious
matters.
- except in the cases of the small percentage of families
who value their freedom so much that they are willing to
pay thousands of dollars a year extra or give up a
comparable value in time in order to keep their freedom.
If they view their inability to force their religion on
others via the state as such a sleight that they would
actually put their children in private schools, they
deserve every penny of the new expense.
This is one of the most bigoted and absurd statements
that I've ever seen.
This will, perhaps, come as a surprise to you, but the fact that you
were singularly incapable of demonstrating that it was, in any way,
"bigoted and absurd" or incorrect in any particular or poorly reasoned
at any point doesn't discourage me from my view.
You're so caught up in your idea that the only reason
why religious peoplke might possibly want religion in
their children's schools is as an excuse to force their
religion onto others that you refuse to even consider
the possibility that families' desire to have religion
in their own children's education could be sincere.
I've never doubted that it's sincere. Your mistake is in thinking this
means anything. One can sincerely advocate many things; monarchism,
fascism, white supremacy, flat-earthism. Every death cult in the
history of the world was utterly sincere in their beliefs. Sincerity
is not reason, and it doesn't make people right or even good.
You don't regard the freedom that is harmed as important.
No "freedom" is being harmed in this scenario at all.
Religious liberty, otoh, is one of the most important
freedoms we have.
If you truly believed that religious liberty is so
important, you would respect other people's religious
liberty even when you have a hard time understanding
why they want what they want.
I respect their religious liberty. When, however, what they want is to
redefine "religious liberty" to mean their right to official
endorsement and the use of the government to trample on everyone
else--what you've been arguing throughout this thread--their view has
nothing to do with religious liberty, and is unworthy of any respect.
The latter is admittedly a value judgment--it is, however, one that is
universally shared by those with any respect for religious liberty, so
I'm in good company.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
19 Sep 2005 10:32:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:42:30 -0500, 1899 Dead wrote:
I'll interrupt here to note that prayers in a school cost Christians
who believe their children should publically pray prayers led by the
state nothing. For the rest of us, there is the cost of having to
find ways to protect our own children from being subjected to
religious propaganda. Catholic schools are generally well-regarded
for the academic levels, but they cost the Catholics quite a bit of
money. The reason those schools existed in the first place was
because Protestants demanded the school day in public schools begin
with the Lord's Prayer. Catholics have a different version, involving
the words "for ever and ever", but the Catholic kids weren't allowed
to tack that on at the end. So they founded their own school system.
The Lord's Prayer cost nothing. Adding four generally meaningless
words cost even less. And it cost the Catholics a fortune.
As I've mentioned before, the public schools here in Vicksburg - when I was
in school - often started out the day with a prayer to some false god that
the baptists and the methodists and the snake-handlers and the communists
worshiped.
Having been fortunate enough to have been born into the Southern Presbyterian
Race, I knew that the Real God was prayed to by Christians saying, "Forgive
us our debts as we forgive our debtors".
So - even before the people for the preservation of wooden toilet seats
invaded our church - I knew about the evils of communism and that there were
communists in the public schools masquerading as Christians and leading us
all down the primrose path to atheistic communism (and that's the worst
kind).
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
If someone knows the answer before
knowing the question, this has nothing
to do with rationality and everything
to do with religion.
[Chad Mitchell Trio?]
.
|
|
|
| User: "human" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
19 Sep 2005 11:16:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Gray Shockley wrote:
As I've mentioned before, the public schools here in Vicksburg - when I was
in school - often started out the day with a prayer to some false god that
the baptists and the methodists and the snake-handlers and the communists
worshiped.
Having been fortunate enough to have been born into the Southern Presbyterian
Race, I knew that the Real God was prayed to by Christians saying, "Forgive
us our debts as we forgive our debtors".
So - even before the people for the preservation of wooden toilet seats
invaded our church - I knew about the evils of communism and that there were
communists in the public schools masquerading as Christians and leading us
all down the primrose path to atheistic communism (and that's the worst
kind).
You brighten my day, Gray Shockley
If someone knows the answer before
knowing the question, this has nothing
to do with rationality and everything
to do with religion.
[Chad Mitchell Trio?]
No matter who, that brightens my day, too!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
16 Sep 2005 09:09:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:43:22 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:16:37 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:co7li1dl1ubijg7jaodfr9ev2milik0qio@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:32:36 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
No. I'm saying that government violates Jefferson's wall of separation
between church and state if it moves into our lives and, in the process,
pushes religion out of the way.
Except that Jefferson's wall of separation isn't a law and therefore
cannot be violated.
Jefferson's wall of separation of church and state was a metaphor for the
effects of the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If
government moves into our lives and, in the process, pushes religion out of
the way, it is violating the right to the free exercise of religion.
Similarly, if religion pushes into our lives, pushing aside freedom to
not believe, it is violating the right to self-govern.
So...... who exactly is pushing aside your freedom to not believe,
Greywolf? <LOL> ..or in your case, to believe in some Wiccan
goddess?
--
"I'd been drawn toward Wicca for many years, then one night She
pretty much came up and tapped me on the shoulder and said hello. Not
literally, but that's how it felt. I believe in the Goddess and the God
because I have felt Their touch... "
Greywolf Zepp Jamieson Aug 12 1996,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.wicca/msg/c7ca14e74a59cfb6?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 07:07:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:58:42 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp#22111896dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:34:14 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:2qtii1tdqr8qgfr174fqdbu019j9vjc7ku@4ax.com...
And yet, if asked to step outside of your right wing boilerplate
attacking an independent judiciary and to name any actual law that any
court has invented, you will be unable to do so. No such thing
exists. Nor can you name a specific example where courts usurp the
powers of the legislature. The courts invalidate laws that violate
the rights of the people (and the legislature does not have the right
to violate the rights of the people) and that's it.
Is it legal to have public prayers in public school classrooms, or at
sporting events of public schools? No. That state of affairs indicates
that the action of holding public prayers in particular settings had been
made illegal. And it was courts, not legislators, that made the action
illegal. Q.E.D.
QED what? Still no law being invented: they merely upheld the
seperation of church and state.
Only if you think that by mentioning the word "god" is establishing a
religion. This is pretty much guaranteed to be overturned by the
SCOTUS.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 08:32:27 PM |
|
|
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:h23ki1p06aiqgat0i3mcn2hv2njl779qa3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:58:42 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp#22111896dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:34:14 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:2qtii1tdqr8qgfr174fqdbu019j9vjc7ku@4ax.com...
And yet, if asked to step outside of your right wing boilerplate
attacking an independent judiciary and to name any actual law that any
court has invented, you will be unable to do so. No such thing
exists. Nor can you name a specific example where courts usurp the
powers of the legislature. The courts invalidate laws that violate
the rights of the people (and the legislature does not have the right
to violate the rights of the people) and that's it.
Is it legal to have public prayers in public school classrooms, or at
sporting events of public schools? No. That state of affairs indicates
that the action of holding public prayers in particular settings had
been
made illegal. And it was courts, not legislators, that made the action
illegal. Q.E.D.
QED what? Still no law being invented: they merely upheld the
seperation of church and state.
Only if you think that by mentioning the word "god" is establishing a
religion. This is pretty much guaranteed to be overturned by the
SCOTUS.
The American left, and most all atheists have declared a war against
Christianity in America. These people do not even want to hear the word God
said aloud, or see it written anywhwere at all.
What has happened is the American left and the atheists have decided not to
have any tolerance at all to the Christian faith.
The American left and the atheists do not launch the same attacks against
Islam or any other religious belief, only Christianity.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 11:31:42 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:h23ki1p06aiqgat0i3mcn2hv2njl779qa3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:58:42 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp#22111896dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:34:14 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:2qtii1tdqr8qgfr174fqdbu019j9vjc7ku@4ax.com...
And yet, if asked to step outside of your right wing boilerplate
attacking an independent judiciary and to name any actual law that any
court has invented, you will be unable to do so. No such thing
exists. Nor can you name a specific example where courts usurp the
powers of the legislature. The courts invalidate laws that violate
the rights of the people (and the legislature does not have the right
to violate the rights of the people) and that's it.
Is it legal to have public prayers in public school classrooms, or at
sporting events of public schools? No. That state of affairs indicates
that the action of holding public prayers in particular settings had
been
made illegal. And it was courts, not legislators, that made the action
illegal. Q.E.D.
QED what? Still no law being invented: they merely upheld the
seperation of church and state.
Only if you think that by mentioning the word "god" is establishing a
religion. This is pretty much guaranteed to be overturned by the
SCOTUS.
The American left, and most all atheists have declared a war against
Christianity in America.
You wish... if by "war" you mean those Christians who lust for power
don't get everything they want as soon as they ask, then yes, there's a
"war." Given that the vast majority of the country identifies itself as
Christian, the idea that Christians are somehow "persecuted" or
"oppressed" is laughable. You have to deal with the fact that we aren't
a theocracy, and the State won't give you special support. Beyond that,
all religious people are free to believe and worship as they wish.
These people do not even want to hear the word God said aloud, or see it
written anywhwere at all.
You can say or write it all you like... you just can't do so in a way
that has the State giving you special consideration.
What has happened is the American left and the atheists have decided not to
have any tolerance at all to the Christian faith.
What happened to the Christians who don't try to push their religion on
everyone else?
The American left and the atheists do not launch the same attacks against
Islam or any other religious belief, only Christianity.
Sigh... most of "The Left" aren't Atheists, as you well know.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nevermore" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 09:09:16 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:32:27 -0800, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"nevermore" <stevencanyon@y***hoo.com> wrote in message
news:h23ki1p06aiqgat0i3mcn2hv2njl779qa3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:58:42 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp#22111896dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:34:14 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:2qtii1tdqr8qgfr174fqdbu019j9vjc7ku@4ax.com...
And yet, if asked to step outside of your right wing boilerplate
attacking an independent judiciary and to name any actual law that any
court has invented, you will be unable to do so. No such thing
exists. Nor can you name a specific example where courts usurp the
powers of the legislature. The courts invalidate laws that violate
the rights of the people (and the legislature does not have the right
to violate the rights of the people) and that's it.
Is it legal to have public prayers in public school classrooms, or at
sporting events of public schools? No. That state of affairs indicates
that the action of holding public prayers in particular settings had
been
made illegal. And it was courts, not legislators, that made the action
illegal. Q.E.D.
QED what? Still no law being invented: they merely upheld the
seperation of church and state.
Only if you think that by mentioning the word "god" is establishing a
religion. This is pretty much guaranteed to be overturned by the
SCOTUS.
The American left, and most all atheists have declared a war against
Christianity in America. These people do not even want to hear the word God
said aloud, or see it written anywhwere at all.
What has happened is the American left and the atheists have decided not to
have any tolerance at all to the Christian faith.
The American left and the atheists do not launch the same attacks against
Islam or any other religious belief, only Christianity.
I know, I know, but don't worry about it because it'll be overturned
soon enough.
--
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 07:37:17 PM |
|
|
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:58:42 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp#22111896dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:34:14 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:2qtii1tdqr8qgfr174fqdbu019j9vjc7ku@4ax.com...
And yet, if asked to step outside of your right wing boilerplate
attacking an independent judiciary and to name any actual law that any
court has invented, you will be unable to do so. No such thing
exists. Nor can you name a specific example where courts usurp the
powers of the legislature. The courts invalidate laws that violate
the rights of the people (and the legislature does not have the right
to violate the rights of the people) and that's it.
Is it legal to have public prayers in public school classrooms, or at
sporting events of public schools? No. That state of affairs indicates
that the action of holding public prayers in particular settings had been
made illegal. And it was courts, not legislators, that made the action
illegal. Q.E.D.
QED what? Still no law being invented: they merely upheld the
seperation of church and state.
Only if you think that by mentioning the word "god" is establishing a
religion.
By including the phrase "under God" in the Pledge, one has a State
representative (the teacher) leading students in the recitation of a
what is, in effect, a loyalty oath, one that includes a reference to a
Deity (and please, don't be coy and try to a pass off "god" as some
generic reference... the people who put that phrase into the pledge in
the '50s knew exactly which "god" they had in mind). As such, it
constitutes State support of one religion (or group of religions) over
others. The Establishment Clause forbids this.
Kids can pray in school all they like. Teachers can, too... but not
when acting as State representatives.
It always surprises me that I, an Atheist, seem to be more concerned
with maintaining our country as a place where those of differing
religions can all pursue their faiths, than many Theists. It is because
the State takes a strictly neutral role with regards to religion that
we are all free to believe, or not believe, as we choose.
Those who lust to see the power of the State lift their religion up,
and push the others down, seem to be laboring under the delusion that
that same power will never be turned against them.
This is pretty much guaranteed to be overturned by the SCOTUS.
They didn't the last time... they let the case slide by on a valid, but
peripheral technicality. No telling what the new Court will do...
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 08:21:12 PM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126831037.419363.300780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
nevermore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:58:42 -0700, 1896 Dead
<zepp#22111896dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:34:14 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
<snip>
It always surprises me that I, an Atheist, seem to be more concerned
with maintaining our country as a place where those of differing
religions can all pursue their faiths, than many Theists. It is because
the State takes a strictly neutral role with regards to religion that
we are all free to believe, or not believe, as we choose.
It shouldn't be surprising. You are looking at the case through strict
Constitutional lenses. The majority theists don't -- they see it as yet
another movement down a slippery slope that begun (in their memory) with the
removal of prayer from the public schools, and will not end until references
to the Creator and Nature's God are edited out of the Preamble and Lincoln's
2nd Inagural Address is sandblasted from the walls of the Lincoln Memorial.
To be fair, most atheists that I know acknowledge that the Fathers were
religious men, their words and thoughts were sometimes/often driven to an
extent by their religious thought, and have no interest nor desire in
obscuring this fact historically. However, the impression that the militant
minority leaves is that this process will not stop until the aforementioned
bottom of the slope is reached, which, basically, scare the living hell (pun
intended) out of the theists.
It would be advantageous if organizations dedicated to the strict
enforcement of separation were to articulate their ultimate objective. Any
advocacy group ought to have an ultimate objective, it would seem, so as not
to give the impression that they will continue to push the envelope ad
infinitum.
If such an objective cannot be articulated, however, you can expect
steadfast opposition on even the smallest of these matters, I would expect.
Mike
Those who lust to see the power of the State lift their religion up,
and push the others down, seem to be laboring under the delusion that
that same power will never be turned against them.
This is pretty much guaranteed to be overturned by the SCOTUS.
They didn't the last time... they let the case slide by on a valid, but
peripheral technicality. No telling what the new Court will do...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 08:56:04 PM |
|
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:c6pWe.1211$Jm.312@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
It would be advantageous if organizations dedicated to the strict
enforcement of separation were to articulate their ultimate objective. Any
advocacy group ought to have an ultimate objective, it would seem, so as
not
to give the impression that they will continue to push the envelope ad
infinitum.
The problem is that groups that want so-called "strict enforcement of
separation" invariably seem to want to define separation in a way that puts
significant chunks of people's (and espeically children's) lives on the
state side of Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state"
whether we like it or not. Consider the attitude toward education. "If you
put your children's education on the state side of the wall, where religious
exercise will be deliberately restricted, we'll spend thousands of dollars
in tax funding to help your children get a good educaiton. But if you want
your children's education to be on the church side of the wall where
government will not restrict religious activities in that enormous part of
your children's lives, you have to give up those benefits worth thousands of
dollars per year per child (even though you still have to pay taxes to fund
those benefits for others), and you have to either pay for your children's
education out of your own pockets or find the time to teach them at home.
And if you don't have the money for a private school or the time for home
schooling, we'll punish you for violating compulsory education laws if you
don't have your children educated on the state side of the wall."
That kind of interpretation of "separation of church and state" is
completely incompatible with true religious freedom. It is designed not for
the purpose of preventing government from interfering in religious aspects
of children's lives (as was the goal clearly expressed by Madison and
Jefferson), but for the purpose of deliberately placing power over religous
aspects of children's lives during school hours under government authority
where a perverted view of separation of church and state can be used as an
excuse to deliberately restrict religious instruction and activities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
18 Sep 2005 10:07:03 AM |
|
|
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|The problem is that groups that want so-called "strict enforcement of
:|separation" invariably seem to want to define separation in a way that puts
:|significant chunks of people's (and espeically children's) lives on the
:|state side of Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state"
:|whether we like it or not.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
******************************************************************
As per your usual you will post a ton of posts then run away.
That is waht you have done foe the past 6 or more years.
It has been demonstrated time and time again you don't have a clue with
regards to understand church state separation, or schools or vouchers or
the legal system or history
Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 1,220 for "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> (0.28 seconds)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Nathan+A.+Barclay%22+%3Cnbarclay%40hiwaay.net%3E+&hl=en
Anyone intersts can take their pick there are some in there that go back
as far as 1997.
or this one
Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 2,090 for "Nathan A. Barclay"
(0.13 seconds)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=%22Nathan+A.+Barclay%22&qt_s=Search
I especially like this one
"Nathan A. Barclay"
For some reason, I suddenly ind an outpouring of posts by Nathan A. Barclay
in this newsgroup. And most of them echo many themes ...
alt.parenting.spanking - Mar 4 1997, 8:45 am by SFPo8 - 1 message - 1
author
People have to remember you are not married, have no children so you have
no experience in such matters but you do love to post on them
This much has been established in the past with regards to you
The Barclay Method:
(1) Sit down with a document he never knew even existed previously. He
had to be told about by a person he feels don't know anything about
history, etc.
(2) Read it.
(3) Create an interpretation of it using nothing but his biased,
unqualified, agenda driven, unsubstantiated ideological barclayism
propagandistic opinion.
(4) Present it and actually expect people to give it any credibility.
Now, readers, kindly note the following, that is, the correct and proper
way of doing it. The method used by Buckeye for example.
PART I. HISTORICAL METHOD
PART II. HISTORICAL RESEARCH
PART III, LEGAL RESEARCH
[Read entire post at ]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2701945958d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H53122839
********************************************
In short, your posts are based totally and completely on this:
Your biased, unqualified, agenda driven, unsubstantiated ideological
barclayism propagandistic opinion.
:| Consider the attitude toward education. "If you
:|put your children's education on the state side of the wall, where religious
:|exercise will be deliberately restricted, we'll spend thousands of dollars
:|in tax funding to help your children get a good educaiton.
There is a publc school system.
Any and all children are eligible and qualified to attend that public
school system.
It id funded by the local government, some sate aid, even less but some
federal funding. The only costs to parents usually conssit of some material
costs.
You are free to pick other forms of eudcation. You can enroll your child in
private school. About 85% - 90% of all private k-12 schools are religious
schools.
A parent can home school
if a parent elects to use one of those choices they should be expected to
pay from them. What you advocate is welfare for education for those opting
out of the public school system.
:| But if you want
:|your children's education to be on the church side of the wall where
:|government will not restrict religious activities in that enormous part of
:|your children's lives, you have to give up those benefits worth thousands of
:|dollars per year per child (even though you still have to pay taxes to fund
:|those benefits for others), and you have to either pay for your children's
:|education out of your own pockets or find the time to teach them at home.
Yep. if you want to send your child (which you don't have and have never
had) you will be expected to pay for that yourself, just like you are
expected tp pay for your own car or truck if you elect to opt out of public
transportation.
:|And if you don't have the money for a private school or the time for home
:|schooling, we'll punish you for violating compulsory education laws if you
:|don't have your children educated on the state side of the wall."
Punished for violating compulsory education laws?
Think about what you are saying there. You are implying that the parent in
question would take their child out of public school but the parent not
having the funds to pay the tutition at a private school and not able to
home school or didn't have contact with other who do homeschool thus havint
their child homeschooled that would would just leave there kid at home all
day while they are at work
if and when the truant officer caught up to them you are calling the
results punishment? WOW what a mind you have.
:|That kind of interpretation of "separation of church and state" is
:|completely incompatible with true religious freedom.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
:|It is designed not for
:|the purpose of preventing government from interfering in religious aspects
:|of children's lives (as was the goal clearly expressed by Madison and
:|Jefferson),
You are lying again when you bring in Jefferson and Madison in that manner.
Church state separation was designed to prevent the goovermnent from having
anythign to do with religion and to prevent religion from havign anythign
to do with govt.
The founders didn't trust govement or church
We had no monarchy or established church that the law was designed o
protect. Instead we had a written Constitution designed to protect citizens
from the tyranny of governments and churches
America on Trial, Inside the Legal Battles that Transformed Our Nation,
Alan M. Dershowitz Warner Books (2004) .p. XVII
***********************************************************
Religious conduct in the context of the Constitution's structure
Freedom of religion is an integral part of the Constitution, not a
principle somehow divorced from the rest of the document. The same
underlying principles that drove the Framers' other choices also set
in motion their placement of religion within American society. Any
theory of the First Amendment that fails to take into account the
Constitution's larger structure is not complete.
One principle infused throughout the Constitution is distrust of the
powerful. The Framers believed that every individual and every
institution holding power was likely to abuse that power.4 They did
not trust the King, the executive, the legislatures, and even the
people, and therefore no single entity could be trusted to govern.
Distrust led the Framers to the checks and balances that are now so
familiar. The three branches –legislative, executive, and judicial –
were to check each other, and the federal and state governments were
mutual checks.5
It should come as no surprise that the Framers started from a position
of distrust. The years between the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitutional Convention were years of disillusionment. The
Declaration was an ebullient Enlightenment document that reflected the
freed colonists' optimism about the future after breaking ties with
the British monarchy and Parliament. There was widespread hope and
expectation that they would institute the first truly successful
republican form of government the world had seen. The Articles of
Confederation established 13 separate states, asserting "Each state
retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power,
jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly
delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."6 Because the
Continental Congress had no power to force states to do other than
they desired, the Articles recognized 13 wholly independent
sovereigns. To say that the state governments that followed did not
deliver on the Declaration's hopes is to severely understate the
matter. Because of their distrust of the king, the newly formed states
disabled their governors and therefore placed virtually all governing
authority into the hands of the state legislatures.
That move would teach them the hard lesson that unchecked power is
abused power. In the face of crushingtrade and monetary problems, the
states were incapable of acting in the interest of the public and even
more incapable of coordinating themselves, thus provoking the ineffectual
Continental Congress to eventually disband in the mid-178os.7 . . .
As if the post-Revolutionary disappointments would not have been enough,
the framing generation was predisposed to distrust the exercise of power by
humans, because so many were Protestant and a significant percentage of
those were Calvinist. Protestantism rested on the premise that governing
institutions, even the Church, were capable of being corrupted. The
Calvinists, whose theological worldview was dominant at the time," held the
paradoxical belief that all men were corrupt but that their inclinations to
abuse power could be deterred by well-crafted governing structures. Calvin
himself suggested fixing the corrupt Catholic Church in the 16th century by
transforming it from an absolute monarchy into a representative structure,
where the people would have some say over their ministers.'3
When the First Amendment was amended to the Constitution, the same
principle of distrust found its way into the document. The First
Amendment's Establishment Clause, which states: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion ..."4 is an explicit check on the
power of religion in the political sphere. At a very minimum, it means no
religious institution will hold governing power.
Following the historical developments detailed in chapter 9, the Framers
made a conscious decision that religion and the state could not
be co-sovereigns.15 The combination of their power was the definition of
tyranny.i6 This principle has crossed national boundaries and become a
bellwether for freedom. Leading Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis explained
it as follows: "Separation [of church and state] ... was designed to
prevent two things: the use of religion by the state to reinforce and
extend its authority and the use of state power by the clergy to impose
their doctrines and rules on others."17
By denying religion the constitutional authority to rule, the Constitution
privatized religion. There would be two sovereigns, but they were secular
governments: the state and the federal. That does not mean that religion
lost social power. It.could and would still occupy the bully pulpit and use
its influence among the people and in the legislatures to shape public
policy, but it could not be government itself.
The Establishment Clause's prohibition of religious sovereignty is
inadequate by itself to ensure that religious entities do not undermine the
public good. By privatizing religion and protecting the right of
conscience, the First Amendment instigated a teeming marketplace of belief.
Religious views compete with other religious views in the public square,
and influence not only the people but also government and public policy.
The privatization of religion also raised an important issue. If they were
not sovereign and therefore could not be checked by the Constitution's
internal structures (like the three branches and the two sovereigns – state
and federal – established), what would keep any one or any group of
religions from harming others? The answer is that religious entities must
be checked as are all other private entities – by the rule of law.
The end, perhaps the inexorable, result of the privatization of religion in
the United States is the rule that religious conduct is properly subject to
"neutral principles of law."18 The Supreme Court in 1971 explained the
principle as follows: "Our cases do not at their farthest reach support the
proposition that a stance of conscientious opposition relieves an objector
from any colliding duty fixed by a democratic government."19 In other
words, when a democratic government passes a law, that law is as binding on
religious conduct as it is on secular conduct.
Some will persist in asking: If religious freedom is a precious right in
the United States, why force religious believers to be governed by laws
that conflict with their beliefs? The answer is that the duties created
by a democratic government – the law – are created for the purpose of
furthering the public good, which is served when bad actors are deterred
from harming others and punished if they do. When religious believers avoid
laws enacted in light of the public good, they undermine the public policy
that led to the law. Every civilized society recognizes the rule of no
harm, and none can afford to give individuals the right to harm others just
because they are religiously motivated.
SOURCE: God vs. The Gavel, Religion and the Rule of Law Marci Hamilton
Cambridge University Press 2005 p 276 - 280
:|but for the purpose of deliberately placing power over religous
:|aspects of children's lives during school hours under government authority
:|where a perverted view of separation of church and state can be used as an
:|excuse to deliberately restrict religious instruction and activities.
Nope, not even close and there is no valid source you can turn to that will
support biased, unqualified, agenda driven, unsubstantiated ideological
barclayism propagandistic opinion.
***************************************************************
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: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
26 Sep 2005 10:08:57 PM |
|
|
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
The problem is that groups that want so-called
"strict enforcement of separation" invariably
seem to want to define separation in a way
that puts significant chunks of people's (and
espeically children's) lives on the state side
of Jefferson's "wall of separation between
church and state" whether we like it or not.
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005,
wrote:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
Certainly, "unsubstantiated", but, more to the
point - Barclay seems to never reply to any
statement but - apparently in some strange and
mystical way, he seems to pick out a couple of
"keywords" and, then, he writes whatever his cult
dictates on those words.
Not quite one of Cary's wombats but, perhaps, a
domesticated opossum which just keeps hanging
around and represents strangeness in motion.
Gray Shockley
-------------------
Or not. Whatever . . .
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 09:10:49 PM |
|
|
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
a perverted view of separation of church and state can be used as an
excuse to deliberately restrict religious instruction and activities.
Of course tax dollars used for religious instruction results in the
state not being separated from the church.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 11:33:01 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mfOdnWN_ytUxtLfeRVn-rA@comcast.com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
a perverted view of separation of church and state can be used as an
excuse to deliberately restrict religious instruction and activities.
Of course tax dollars used for religious instruction results in the state
not being separated from the church.
That depends.
If government gives money for the specific purpose of religious instruction,
separation of church and state is violated.
If government gives money that can be used for instruction in all manner of
secular subjects, but singles out religious instruction as something that
the money must not be used for, that also violates separation of church and
state. Government deliberately crosses the wall of separation and
interferes with the choice of whether to study religious or secular
subjects.
But if government gives money for instruction without attempting to
influence the choice between religious and secular subjects of study, church
and state are kept as perfectly separate as is possible short of government
not providing money for instruction at all. Government stays out of the
choice of whether to study religion or to study only secular subjects, and
gives people who study religion neither a financial advantage nor a
financial disadvantage compared with those who study only secular subjects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
16 Sep 2005 12:01:14 PM |
|
|
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mfOdnWN_ytUxtLfeRVn-rA@comcast.com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
a perverted view of separation of church and state can be used as an
excuse to deliberately restrict religious instruction and activities.
Of course tax dollars used for religious instruction results in the state
not being separated from the church.
That depends.
If government gives money for the specific purpose of religious instruction,
separation of church and state is violated.
If government gives money that can be used for instruction in all manner of
secular subjects, but singles out religious instruction as something that
the money must not be used for, that also violates separation of church and
state. Government deliberately crosses the wall of separation and
interferes with the choice of whether to study religious or secular
subjects.
But if government gives money for instruction without attempting to
influence the choice between religious and secular subjects of study, church
and state are kept as perfectly separate as is possible short of government
not providing money for instruction at all. Government stays out of the
choice of whether to study religion or to study only secular subjects, and
gives people who study religion neither a financial advantage nor a
financial disadvantage compared with those who study only secular subjects.
Your are creating a distinction that does not exist. You think
government can provide funding without influencing what is taught. Not
only does the government have influence, in the form of school boards
and their employees (teachers), government chooses what topics are
taught.
There are only two possibilities: 1) the government uses tax dollars
specifcally to teach religion, 2) the government specifcally bars tax
dollars from being used to teach religion. The former obviously does
not separate church and state. The latter maintains the separation
because the government has no opinion, one way or the other, how
private monies are used.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
18 Sep 2005 06:47:59 AM |
|
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
:|
:|It would be advantageous if organizations dedicated to the strict
:|enforcement of separation were to articulate their ultimate objective. Any
:|advocacy group ought to have an ultimate objective, it would seem, so as not
:|to give the impression that they will continue to push the envelope ad
:|infinitum.
:|
:|If such an objective cannot be articulated, however, you can expec
:|steadfast opposition on even the smallest of these matters, I would expect.
:|
:|Mike
This "battle" is nothing new. it has been going on since before the ink was
even dry on the Constitution and it will continue on long after I and
probably you as well are gone. It doesn't matter if those who support
strict separation define anything or not the other side is still going to
try and turn back the hands of time to build as many unions between govt
and religion as they can to create their theocracy
***************************************************************
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
19 Sep 2005 03:42:10 PM |
|
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
:|
:|It would be advantageous if organizations dedicated to the strict
:|enforcement of separation were to articulate their ultimate objective. Any
:|advocacy group ought to have an ultimate objective, it would seem, so as not
:|to give the impression that they will continue to push the envelope ad
:|infinitum.
:|
:|If such an objective cannot be articulated, however, you can expec
:|steadfast opposition on even the smallest of these matters, I would expect.
:|
:|Mike
This "battle" is nothing new. it has been going on since before the ink was
even dry on the Constitution and it will continue on long after I and
probably you as well are gone. It doesn't matter if those who support
strict separation define anything or not the other side is still going to
try and turn back the hands of time to build as many unions between govt
and religion as they can to create their theocracy
***************************************************************
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: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 03:25:49 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:34:14 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Nathan A.
Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> in <11ijj5mmbfbqa3e@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:2qtii1tdqr8qgfr174fqdbu019j9vjc7ku@4ax.com...
And yet, if asked to step outside of your right wing boilerplate
attacking an independent judiciary and to name any actual law that any
court has invented, you will be unable to do so. No such thing
exists. Nor can you name a specific example where courts usurp the
powers of the legislature. The courts invalidate laws that violate
the rights of the people (and the legislature does not have the right
to violate the rights of the people) and that's it.
Is it legal to have public prayers in public school classrooms, or at
sporting events of public schools? No.
Not if the school or agents of the school leads the prayer. If the
school gives time to a student to say whatever that student wants,
with no school censorship of the material, then the student can say
what they want.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 08:28:32 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:m4mji1htd9ckld6m6j2emmk5hdtn5dssmc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:34:14 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Nathan A.
Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> in <11ijj5mmbfbqa3e@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:2qtii1tdqr8qgfr174fqdbu019j9vjc7ku@4ax.com...
And yet, if asked to step outside of your right wing boilerplate
attacking an independent judiciary and to name any actual law that any
court has invented, you will be unable to do so. No such thing
exists. Nor can you name a specific example where courts usurp the
powers of the legislature. The courts invalidate laws that violate
the rights of the people (and the legislature does not have the right
to violate the rights of the people) and that's it.
Is it legal to have public prayers in public school classrooms, or at
sporting events of public schools? No.
Not if the school or agents of the school leads the prayer. If the
school gives time to a student to say whatever that student wants,
with no school censorship of the material, then the student can say
what they want.
The Santa Fe decision took the right of the students to say prayers at
sporting events away.
So because of Santa Fe and other leftist judicial attacks against Christians
you can no longer say prayers at public school sporting events or
graduations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 08:39:23 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11ik7lva6k54ba5@corp.supernews.com...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:m4mji1htd9ckld6m6j2emmk5hdtn5dssmc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:34:14 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Nathan A.
Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> in <11ijj5mmbfbqa3e@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:2qtii1tdqr8qgfr174fqdbu019j9vjc7ku@4ax.com...
And yet, if asked to step outside of your right wing boilerplate
attacking an independent judiciary and to name any actual law that
any
court has invented, you will be unable to do so. No such thing
exists. Nor can you name a specific example where courts usurp the
powers of the legislature. The courts invalidate laws that violate
the rights of the people (and the legislature does not have the right
to violate the rights of the people) and that's it.
Is it legal to have public prayers in public school classrooms, or at
sporting events of public schools? No.
Not if the school or agents of the school leads the prayer. If the
school gives time to a student to say whatever that student wants,
with no school censorship of the material, then the student can say
what they want.
The Santa Fe decision took the right of the students to say prayers at
sporting events away.
So because of Santa Fe and other leftist judicial attacks against
Christians
you can no longer say prayers at public school sporting events or
graduations.
If I'm not mistaken, I beleve that school districts also are allowed to
censor references to God out of their student's valdictory addresses.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
15 Sep 2005 08:51:18 PM |
|
|
"MichaelC" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:fnpWe.1219$Jm.314@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11ik7lva6k54ba5@corp.supernews.com...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:m4mji1htd9ckld6m6j2emmk5hdtn5dssmc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:34:14 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Nathan A.
Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> in <11ijj5mmbfbqa3e@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"1896 Dead" <zepp1896#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:2qtii1tdqr8qgfr174fqdbu019j9vjc7ku@4ax.com...
And yet, if asked to step outside of your right wing boilerplate
attacking an independent judiciary and to name any actual law that
any
court has invented, you will be unable to do so. No such thing
exists. Nor can you name a specific example where courts usurp the
powers of the legislature. The courts invalidate laws that violate
the rights of the people (and the legislature does not have the
right
to violate the rights of the people) and that's it.
Is it legal to have public prayers in public school classrooms, or at
sporting events of public schools? No.
Not if the school or agents of the school leads the prayer. If the
school gives time to a student to say whatever that student wants,
with no school censorship of the mat | | | | |
