| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andres64" |
| Date: |
09 Jun 2005 11:24:46 PM |
| Object: |
OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 02:03:45 AM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1118359486.548345.106010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
So, where exactly is the "religious bigotry"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 01:11:40 PM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1118359486.548345.106010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
So, where exactly is the "religious bigotry"?
In the minds of those theocratic fanatics who get whiney when the ACLU
rules against enforced prayer in school and conversion by the sword.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is
impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that
mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and
prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the
commission of every other crime." - Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
09 Jun 2005 11:31:41 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
09 Jun 2005 11:44:55 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden <woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 01:13:46 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden <woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
Transparently obvious sarcasm in the subject line flies right over the
Liberal's head. Why is that?
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 02:06:37 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in message news:1118366117.f0a1bfd91fa91c498522bf9abd20fcca@teranews...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden
<woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners
who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against
Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
Transparently obvious sarcasm in the subject line flies right over the
Liberal's head. Why is that?
Transparently obvious sarcasm?
The original post sounds exactly what clueless right-wing nuts so often say
in these NGs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 03:14:04 AM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> wrote
in message news:1118366117.f0a1bfd91fa91c498522bf9abd20fcca@teranews...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden
<woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners
who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against
Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
Transparently obvious sarcasm in the subject line flies right over the
Liberal's head. Why is that?
Transparently obvious sarcasm?
The original post sounds exactly what clueless right-wing nuts so often say
in these NGs.
Really? When satirizing something, the point is to sound like the thing
you are satirizing while providing clues to those who pay attention that
you are actually of the opposite or at least a different view. Of course
there are times when ambiguity exists. For example, would someone
seriously call himself 'peacenik'? There is a poster who calls himself
'iceman'. Are his ridiculous claims about 9/11 (and every other wacko
conspiracy) really satire on Harry Hope, a kooky Democrat poster
spamming political newsgroups. Or is iceman really a nutjob? I think
that's a more difficult assessment than was needed to follow this
thread.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 01:47:46 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden <woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
Transparently obvious sarcasm in the subject line flies right over the
Liberal's head. Why is that?
One possible explanation would be that some of us don't make unwarranted
suppositions about the intellect of another without actually checking
first.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 01:51:55 AM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d8arg2$a85$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden
<woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1118359486.548345.106010 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold
the constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to
allow prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their
religious liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the
ACLU National Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court
brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio
prisoners who had been denied access to religious items and
literature, as well as time to worship. The prisoners filed a
legal challenge against Reginald Wilkinson, Director of the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, stating that
the prison department was in violation of federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 violated the separation of church and
state. However, as the ACLU argued in its brief, the federal
law mandates nothing more than the removal of substantial
government-imposed burdens on religious exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=172
50&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this
is an example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
Transparently obvious sarcasm in the subject line flies right over
the Liberal's head. Why is that?
One possible explanation would be that some of us don't make
unwarranted suppositions about the intellect of another without
actually checking first.
-- cary
Another explanation is that we get so many fundies (religious or
political) around here that are so far out that it's often hard to tell
the difference between the nuts and the sarcasm.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 03:07:47 AM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d8arg2$a85$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden
<woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1118359486.548345.106010 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold
the constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to
allow prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their
religious liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the
ACLU National Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court
brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio
prisoners who had been denied access to religious items and
literature, as well as time to worship. The prisoners filed a
legal challenge against Reginald Wilkinson, Director of the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, stating that
the prison department was in violation of federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 violated the separation of church and
state. However, as the ACLU argued in its brief, the federal
law mandates nothing more than the removal of substantial
government-imposed burdens on religious exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=172
50&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this
is an example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
Transparently obvious sarcasm in the subject line flies right over
the Liberal's head. Why is that?
One possible explanation would be that some of us don't make
unwarranted suppositions about the intellect of another without
actually checking first.
Another explanation is that we get so many fundies (religious or
political) around here that are so far out that it's often hard to tell
the difference between the nuts and the sarcasm.
Since you noted that the article itself was manifestly not an example of
the ACLU siding with those who would restrict religious liberties,
wasn't it clear that the direct meaning of the subject line was to be
considered as opposite of actual intent even including the possibility
that the poster was a "fundie"?
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 02:37:13 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote in message ...
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden
<woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the
case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners
who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well
as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against
Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is
an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
Transparently obvious sarcasm in the subject line flies right over the
Liberal's head. Why is that?
One possible explanation would be that some of us don't make unwarranted
suppositions about the intellect of another without actually checking
first.
Too bad that's not true for more alt.atheism posters.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 03:16:17 AM |
|
|
Rick wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote in message ...
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden
<woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the
case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners
who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well
as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against
Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is
an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
Transparently obvious sarcasm in the subject line flies right over the
Liberal's head. Why is that?
One possible explanation would be that some of us don't make unwarranted
suppositions about the intellect of another without actually checking
first.
Too bad that's not true for more alt.atheism posters.
What Kittrell means is that she makes an effort to check to make sure
that the poster is an atheist and therefore not a nut, that is a person
with religious beliefs.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of recirculation" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 04:10:36 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden <woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
Transparently obvious sarcasm in the subject line flies right over the
Liberal's head. Why is that?
One possible explanation would be that some of us don't make unwarranted
suppositions about the intellect of another without actually checking
first.
I did not know that.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 02:29:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1118376725.875bef1f93f24a4c1a7c6b888ca67214@teranews> "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <jun@nuj.net>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden <woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
Transparently obvious sarcasm in the subject line flies right over the
Liberal's head. Why is that?
One possible explanation would be that some of us don't make unwarranted
suppositions about the intellect of another without actually checking
first.
I did not know that.
's true. But please PLEASE don't tell anyone; I think they can yank your account
for that.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
09 Jun 2005 11:55:03 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden <woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
You are correct sir. (My posts should come with a warning label)
Andres a.a. #1624
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 02:05:28 AM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1118361303.813247.86260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden
<woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners
who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against
Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
You are correct sir. (My posts should come with a warning label)
Oh, I see.
Sorry, we see so many kook here it's almost impossible to separate the kooks
from those satirizing the kooks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 02:23:10 PM |
|
|
In article <d8ash6$a22$1@news.seed.net.tw> "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1118361303.813247.86260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden
<woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners
who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against
Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
You are correct sir. (My posts should come with a warning label)
Oh, I see.
Sorry, we see so many kook here it's almost impossible to separate the kooks
from those satirizing the kooks.
Too true. I think that the actual kooks should be required to hunch
their heads down into their necks, thrust both hands high with
the V-for-victory sign, and proclaim "I am not a kook".
What? Oh, well, see, back in my day, we had this Presid...
Oh, never mind.
-- cry
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 02:35:35 AM |
|
|
Andres64 wrote in message
<1118361303.813247.86260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <Xns9670C7493CBB0wodencharternet@69.28.186.121> Woden
<woden@charter.net> writes:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1118359486.548345.106010
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against
Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
ROTFL. Obviously, you didn't read the article if you think this is an
example of "anti-religious bigotry" by the ACLU.
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
You are correct sir. (My posts should come with a warning label)
Blame Brien!
^
:
)
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brien Sullivan" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 05:59:06 AM |
|
|
"Rick" <pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com> wrote:
Andres64 wrote in message
Cary Kittrell wrote:
I started to say the same thing, but checking Andres' other
posts, I suspect his Subject line was tongue in cheek.
You are correct sir. (My posts should come with a warning
label)
No, the good people get what you're saying.
Blame Brien!
Don't read this, Andres! Rick is trying to seduce you into
worshipping filthy graven images.
^
:
)
Blecchh!
--
Brien
Any father who thinks he's all important
should remind himself that this country honors
fathers only one day a year while pickles get
a whole week. --Unknown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
10 Jun 2005 01:10:33 PM |
|
|
Brien Sullivan wrote:
Don't read this, Andres! Rick is trying to seduce you into
worshipping filthy graven images.
And why not? If the stain takes the shape of Jesus or Mary, there are
many Christians who will happily worship filthy gravy images.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in
disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is
impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that
mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and
prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the
commission of every other crime." - Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Red" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More anti-religious bigotry from the ACLU... |
09 Jun 2005 11:55:11 PM |
|
|
In article <1118359486.548345.106010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote:
On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the
constitutionality of a federal law that requires states to allow
prisoners to practice their religious beliefs.
"It is wrong to punish prisoners by denying them their religious
liberty," said Elizabeth Alexander, Director of the ACLU National
Prison Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
In the ruling, the Justices unanimously sided with Ohio prisoners who
had been denied access to religious items and literature, as well as
time to worship. The prisoners filed a legal challenge against Reginald
Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, stating that the prison department was in violation of
federal law.
The decision struck down a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
violated the separation of church and state. However, as the ACLU
argued in its brief, the federal law mandates nothing more than the
removal of substantial government-imposed burdens on religious
exercise.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17250&c=29
"My religion is toilets, so I'm OK."--L'il Jak
Sr. Rojo
--
"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror,
murder, bloodshed -- but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and
the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of
democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
--Harry Lyme
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
