| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Arne Langsetmo" |
| Date: |
01 Mar 2004 05:20:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: High court is atheist's calling |
The amicus brief PDFs filed by various people can be accessed
here:
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/
I note that the Catholic League for Religious and
Civil Rights and Thomas More Law Center brief
contains a bogus James Madison quote (nice to
send briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court containing
manufactured quotes, eh?, now that's "style"...),
WRT which I sent them an e-mail referencing Jim's
web page on this, and informing them of this
error on their part.
I note also the subtle irony (oh, OK, maybe not
so subtle) of a place calling itself the "Thomas
More Law Center" filing a support brief for the
practise of "loyalty oaths" when the most famous
act of the namesake of their organization was to
lose his head for refusing to sign exactly
such a thing. . . . LOL.
Hard to see Newdow losing this one on the real
Constitutional merits, but stranger things have
happened.
But maybe Rehnquist is starting to feel his own
mortality, and is thinking more about what his
"legacy" might be, rather than how to keep the
blacks and Latinos in their place and prop up a morally
bankrupt Republican party. He certainly does have
a lot of sins to atone for in his few remaining years.
We shall see. . . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
HIGH COURT IS ATHEIST'S CALLING
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/162383_pledge27.html
***********************************************
Atheist's point well-taken in Pledge case dry run
Receptive Boalt panel
By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER
**EXCERPT**
BERKELEY -- The atheist who's trying to convince the U.S. Supreme Court
that making public school students recite or sit through the Pledge of
Allegiance with the words "under God" is unconstitutional argued his case
Thursday to a learned panel of legal experts.
And he won. Sort of.
Most of the panel at the University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall
School of Law's moot court competition seemed to agree with Dr. Michael
Newdow that letting public school teachers lead daily recitations of the
pledge as it's now written violates the First Amendment's vow that
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
**END EXCERPT**
http://www.timesstar.com/Stories/0,1413,125~1486~1968125,00.html
.
|
|
| User: "Dana 1" |
|
| Title: Re: High court is atheist's calling |
01 Mar 2004 08:56:14 PM |
|
|
"Arne Langsetmo" <zuch@bangspam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:HyP0c.14620$yZ1.5295@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I note that the Catholic League for Religious and
Civil Rights and Thomas More Law Center brief
contains a bogus James Madison quote
LIAR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arne Langsetmo" |
|
| Title: Re: High court is atheist's calling |
02 Mar 2004 04:20:05 PM |
|
|
"ButtMaster" Dana Raffaniello actually wrote something (a one word sentence)!:
"Arne Langsetmo" <zuch@bangspam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:HyP0c.14620$yZ1.5295@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I note that the Catholic League for Religious and
Civil Rights and Thomas More Law Center brief
contains a bogus James Madison quote
LIAR
http://candst.tripod.com/misq2.htm
compare:
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/CatholicLeague.pdf
Do you get some pleasure out of getting your butt kicked every which
way but Friday, Dana? Do you settle for people metaphorically pissing
all over you for lack of any takers to do it to you in real life?
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: High court is atheist's calling |
02 Mar 2004 11:02:35 AM |
|
|
Arne Langsetmo <zuch@bangspam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:|The amicus brief PDFs filed by various people can be accessed
:|here:
:|
:|http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/
:|
:|I note that the Catholic League for Religious and
:|Civil Rights and Thomas More Law Center brief
:|contains a bogus James Madison quote (nice to
:|send briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court containing
:|manufactured quotes, eh?, now that's "style"...),
:|WRT which I sent them an e-mail referencing Jim's
:|web page on this, and informing them of this
:|error on their part.
:|
:|I note also the subtle irony (oh, OK, maybe not
:|so subtle) of a place calling itself the "Thomas
:|More Law Center" filing a support brief for the
:|practise of "loyalty oaths" when the most famous
:|act of the namesake of their organization was to
:|lose his head for refusing to sign exactly
:|such a thing. . . . LOL.
:|
:|Hard to see Newdow losing this one on the real
:|Constitutional merits, but stranger things have
:|happened.
:|
:|But maybe Rehnquist is starting to feel his own
:|mortality, and is thinking more about what his
:|"legacy" might be, rather than how to keep the
:|blacks and Latinos in their place and prop up a morally
:|bankrupt Republican party. He certainly does have
:|a lot of sins to atone for in his few remaining years.
:|
:|We shall see. . . .
:|
:|Cheers,
:|
:| -- Arne Langsetmo
:|
Here is an opinion from an Attorney who has done some articles for our web
site:
**************************************************************
Thank you very much for the links! I've been wanting a little more
substance.
The really disturbing thing here, which nobody seems to care about, is
that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court has eroded. So many experts
and citizens seem to agree that Newdow is right, but that he will lose.
If there is a consensus among informed people, that's probably it.
That's frightening to me. The notion that, in a clear-cut case without
a lot of factual twists and turns, experts agree on the right decision,
but also agree that the Supreme Court will make the wrong decision,
points to an unacceptable politicization of the Court. Nobody thinks
for a minute that this supposedly-august body will have the guts to do
the right thing! What a change from previous courts who did things like
strike down immensely popular segregation, strike down racial marriage
bans, etc.
***********************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: High court is atheist's calling |
02 Mar 2004 11:39:31 AM |
|
|
Arne Langsetmo <zuch@bangspam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:|The amicus brief PDFs filed by various people can be accessed
:|here:
:|
:|http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/
:|
:|I note that the Catholic League for Religious and
:|Civil Rights and Thomas More Law Center brief
:|contains a bogus James Madison quote (nice to
:|send briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court containing
:|manufactured quotes, eh?, now that's "style"...),
:|WRT which I sent them an e-mail referencing Jim's
:|web page on this, and informing them of this
:|error on their part.
:|
:|I note also the subtle irony (oh, OK, maybe not
:|so subtle) of a place calling itself the "Thomas
:|More Law Center" filing a support brief for the
:|practise of "loyalty oaths" when the most famous
:|act of the namesake of their organization was to
:|lose his head for refusing to sign exactly
:|such a thing. . . . LOL.
:|
:|Hard to see Newdow losing this one on the real
:|Constitutional merits, but stranger things have
:|happened.
:|
:|But maybe Rehnquist is starting to feel his own
:|mortality, and is thinking more about what his
:|"legacy" might be, rather than how to keep the
:|blacks and Latinos in their place and prop up a morally
:|bankrupt Republican party. He certainly does have
:|a lot of sins to atone for in his few remaining years.
:|
:|We shall see. . . .
:|
:|Cheers,
:|
:| -- Arne Langsetmo
:|
Here is an opinion from an Attorney who has done some articles for our web
site:
**************************************************************
Thank you very much for the links! I've been wanting a little more
substance.
The really disturbing thing here, which nobody seems to care about, is
that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court has eroded. So many experts
and citizens seem to agree that Newdow is right, but that he will lose.
If there is a consensus among informed people, that's probably it.
That's frightening to me. The notion that, in a clear-cut case without
a lot of factual twists and turns, experts agree on the right decision,
but also agree that the Supreme Court will make the wrong decision,
points to an unacceptable politicization of the Court. Nobody thinks
for a minute that this supposedly-august body will have the guts to do
the right thing! What a change from previous courts who did things like
strike down immensely popular segregation, strike down racial marriage
bans, etc.
***********************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: High court is atheist's calling |
02 Mar 2004 03:11:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:39:31 -0600, wrote
(in message <2lh940pg9dubvl5uggru5qmgk3hl6veia5@4ax.com>):
Arne Langsetmo <zuch@bangspam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The amicus brief PDFs filed by various people can be accessed
here:
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/
I note that the Catholic League for Religious and
Civil Rights and Thomas More Law Center brief
contains a bogus James Madison quote (nice to
send briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court containing
manufactured quotes, eh?, now that's "style"...),
WRT which I sent them an e-mail referencing Jim's
web page on this, and informing them of this
error on their part.
I note also the subtle irony (oh, OK, maybe not
so subtle) of a place calling itself the "Thomas
More Law Center" filing a support brief for the
practise of "loyalty oaths" when the most famous
act of the namesake of their organization was to
lose his head for refusing to sign exactly
such a thing. . . . LOL.
Hard to see Newdow losing this one on the real
Constitutional merits, but stranger things have
happened.
But maybe Rehnquist is starting to feel his own
mortality, and is thinking more about what his
"legacy" might be, rather than how to keep the
blacks and Latinos in their place and prop up a morally
bankrupt Republican party. He certainly does have
a lot of sins to atone for in his few remaining years.
We shall see. . . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Here is an opinion from an Attorney who has done some articles for our web
site:
**************************************************************
Thank you very much for the links! I've been wanting a little more
substance.
The really disturbing thing here, which nobody seems to care about, is
that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court has eroded. So many experts
and citizens seem to agree that Newdow is right, but that he will lose.
If there is a consensus among informed people, that's probably it.
That's frightening to me. The notion that, in a clear-cut case without
a lot of factual twists and turns, experts agree on the right decision,
but also agree that the Supreme Court will make the wrong decision,
points to an unacceptable politicization of the Court. Nobody thinks
for a minute that this supposedly-august body will have the guts to do
the right thing! What a change from previous courts who did things like
strike down immensely popular segregation, strike down racial marriage
bans, etc.
***********************************************************
Did s/he also make the point that the people who supported that "immensely
popular segregation" and those "racial marriages" are - to a tremendously
large extent - the very same folks who are now having their marriages
"destroyed" [snicker] by those horrible, evil homosexuals who believe in the
sanctity and legality of marriage?
It seems that the followers of Saul/Paul are against whatever extensions of
liberty are being advocated and that the very few actual followers of Jesus
are for extending rights and privileges to all people.
Followers of SaulPaul seem to be more worshippers of the "fiery cross" than
the "empty cross" of those who follow Jesus.
The "Saulists/Paulists" seem to be composed of rather pompous arses who are
divided among Sadducees, Moneychangers and Pharisees.
Gray Shockley
-----------------------
pity . . .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
