| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Feb 2006 07:22:17 AM |
| Object: |
Skoros to Straighten Out Everson? |
Will SCOTUS Use Skoros to Straighten Out Everson?
How seriously did people take all the Theocrats ink and verbal bombastic
exercises this past Holiday season? How many treated it with a ho hum
attitude? How many realized that the theocrats was using that as just one
prong in the much bigger goal, that goal being to overturn
Everson v. Bd. of Education, 330 US 1 (1947)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0330_0001_ZS.html
and subsequently all USSC rulings that followed that was decided in favor
of strict separation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 15, 2004
WAR AGAINST CHRISTMAS 2004 COMPETITION
[I] [II] [III] [IV] [V] [VI] [VII] [VIII] [X] [XI] [XII] [XIII] [XIV] [XV]
[XVI] [XVII] [XVIII] [XIX] [XX] - See also: War Against Christmas 2003,
2002, 2001, 2000
War Against Christmas 2004 Competition [IX]: An Orwellian Christmas
By Tom Piatak
http://www.vdare.com/piatak/041215_christmas.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Will SCOTUS Use Skoros to Straighten Out Everson?
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/12136.html
[excerpt]
February 06, 2006 12:45 PM EST
There is a simple reason why post-World War II jurisprudence involving the
First Amendment’s religious clauses is twisted and tortured: the United
States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) made an egregious error in 1947 in ruling
that government must be neutral as between religion and irreligion and must
not support religion generally and it has not yet corrected itself.
Will Skoros v. City of New York be the case in which SCOTUS admits and
corrects that egregious error? Please pray that it becomes so.
America was founded based not only on a belief in God, but on fundamental
rights given to people by God that governments established by people are
bound to respect. Thus, America’s Declaration of Independence begins::
[end excerpt]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Background
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Andrea Skoros, individually, and as next friend of Nicholas and Christos
Tine, Plaintiffs, CV-02-6439 (CPS)
- against - City of New York et alia, February 18, 2004
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/02cv6439mdo.pdf
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Separation of Chuch and State
http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/ab/ChurchState.asp
[excerpt]
Skoros v. City of New York, et al. (2004)
http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/ab/Final%20ADL%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
[ the above URL takes you to a brief that was filed with the 2nd Circiut
Court of Appeals on behave of the ADL in this case ]
At issue in the case is the constitutionality of an inclusive December
Holiday display policy issued by the City of New York Department of
Education. In an effort to recognize the City's "diverse multi-cultural
community" while complying with constitutionally-mandated separation of
church and state, the Department adopted a policy permitting the display of
secular symbols from all religious traditions including Christmas, Ramadan
and Hanukkah. Although the policy permits numerous secular Christmas
symbols, a parent alleged that it unconstitutionally disfavored
Christianity because her request for a display to include a crèche, an
overtly religious symbol, was denied. ADL's brief argues that by permitting
secular symbols from all traditions, the policy favors no religious group
and the Constitution's prohibition on endorsement of religion necessitated
the Department's decision. PDF 2,420kb
[end of excerpt]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
U.S. 2ND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FindLaw: Services Newsletter
http://corporate.findlaw.com/newsletters/archive/services.html
Skoros v. City of New York, No. 04-1229 (2nd Circuit, February 02, 2006)
New York City's holiday display policy for its public schools, both on its
face and as applied by the defendants, comports with the Establishment and
Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and does not violate a
parent's right to control the religious upbringing and education of her
children.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/041229p.pdf
[as of this morning at least the above URL didn't work. I am hoping that it
will be functional later today or that another URL can be located that
does work ]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sharply Divided Court Upholds City’s Anti-Christian Ban of Nativity in New
York City Public Schools
Fri, Feb 3, 2006
http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=396
[excerpt]
ANN ARBOR, MI — A sharply divided panel of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that it is constitutionally
permissible for New York City public schools to ban the display of the
Christian nativity during Christmas, while permitting the display of the
Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during Hanukkah and
Ramadan.
The legal challenge to this policy was brought by the Thomas More Law
Center on behalf of Ms. Andrea Skoros and her two children, who attend
public elementary schools in New York.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law
Center, called the decision another outrageous example of federal courts
discriminating against Christians. Said Thompson, “Many federal courts are
using the contrived endorsement test to cleanse America of Christianity.
This unprincipled test allows judges to impose their ideological views
under the pretext of constitutional interpretation. Thus, the majority
opinion says it is legitimate to discriminate against Christians in the
largest public school system in the country, with over one million students
enrolled in its 1200 public schools and programs. This should be a wake-up
call for Christians across this nation.”
Robert Muise, the Law Center’s attorney handling the case, commented, “This
is a shocking decision and Christians should be outraged by it. We strongly
believe that the majority decision is fundamentally flawed, as pointed out
by the dissent, and we intend to take this fight to the next level. This
battle is far from over.”
[end of excerpt]
Related Stories _This list of articles and praise be to the Thomas More
law Center goes back to Mon, Nov 27, 2000. I am only including a few on the
very top of the list
http://www.thomasmore.org/newslisting.html?NewsCatID=2
Articles Related to Religious Freedom
Appeals court bars Nativity at schools
World Net Daily
Sharply Divided Court Upholds City’s Anti-Christian Ban of Nativity in New
York City Public Schools
Fri, Feb 3, 2006
Appeals Court Upholds Nativity Ban in NYC Schools
CNS News
Law Center Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Take Up Hostility to Religion Case
Tue, Jan 24, 2006
Court Issues Troubling Decision In Dover Intelligent Design Case
Wed, Dec 21, 2005
Ninth Circuit Appellate Court asked to Reconsider its Ruling that it is OK
For Public Schools To Teach Seventh Graders “To Become Muslims”
Mon, Dec 19, 2005
Couple wins Nativity scene battle
World Net Daily
Lawsuit challenges Christmas-music ban
World Net Daily
Thomas More Law Center Challenges New Jersey District's Total Ban on
Christmas Music In Federal Appellate Court
Thu, Dec 15, 2005
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The following excerpt clearly states the goal of at least this particular
group but this group is tightly associated with the other groups of the
radical religious right, the theocrats,
Law Center Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Take Up Hostility to Religion Case
Tue, Jan 24, 2006
http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=395
[excerpt]
Ann Arbor, MI—The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public-interest law
firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a petition with the United
States Supreme Court, asking the court to review an Establishment Clause
case involving a religious display that was hostile to Catholics. In
addition to asking the high court to revisit its confusing and inconsistent
Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the petition notes that this would be a
case of first impression. The Supreme Court has yet to decide a “hostility
to religion” case under the Establishment Clause.
Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center,
commented, “The Supreme Court’s modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence
is in hopeless disarray. Despite giving lip service to the concept that the
Establishment Clause prohibits both the promotion of and hostility towards
religion, this and several other recent decisions by federal judges have
demonstrated that there is a double standard. The Ten Commandments and the
Nativity scene are out and public schools can’t mention intelligent design,
but an overtly, anti-Catholic display is permissible because it allegedly
enhances aesthetics. Apparently, the Establishment Clause protects atheists
and secular humanists, but affords no comparable protection for Christians.
This disturbing trend in our federal courts must be reversed.”
[end excerpt]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Mrs. Skoros is represented by Domino's Pizza magnate Thomas Monaghan's
Thomas More Law Center
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=+pizza+magnate+Thomas+Monaghan%27s+Thomas+More+Law+Center&btnG=Search
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Thomas+More+Law+Center&btnG=Search
***************************************************************
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 US 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skoros to Straighten Out Everson? |
08 Feb 2006 09:42:16 AM |
|
|
I was asked how I thought the USSC, if they got/took the case might
actually overturn Everson using this case
My reply was as follows:
The title of the thread came from the title of a article which I included
an excerpt from and a URL to.
I didn't make the claim that this particular case would overturn Everson.
What I can say though is this. A lot of the noise the other side is making
on a variety of fronts is designed to get cases into the courts with the
ultimate hope that one of those cases with do that very thing.
They see the current climate in the country as advantageous to them (polls
show over and over again most people support church state separation in the
abstract, but many, maybe most of those same people oppose removing "under
God," support positing the Ten Commandments in schools, on public grounds,
in public/govt buildings and so on and so forth)
They see the current make up of the courts in their favor. I recently did a
think on the make up of the Circuit courts. Each court and overall totals,
posted it in the UseNet Newsgroups and I think on the Yahoo group Sep of
Church and State that I run. (one of the moderators here is a member
--grin . We have at least one celebrity as a member too, Ellery Schempp)
As I recall there are 158 judges on circuit courts appointed by Republican
Presidents and something like 95 or so appointed by Democrats.
Of course that does not mean that all those folks decide things based on
politics but some do.
Baby teflon Bush having 3 more years and some of those judges getting up
in years (one appointed by Kennedy is still on the bench as well as a
couple appointed by Johnson. and several by Nixon) that ratio os going to
get even more slanted to the right and ultra right too in all probability.
The theocrats know they have Thomas. he is very much in favor of removing
the Establishment Clause from state application. There are signs that
Scalia might go along with such, the two new ones are unknown but I don't
think either of the two new ones will shift the court back to the center or
the left on the subject of church state.
Will Kennedy go back to his earlier church state thinking where he was more
of a moderate then he has been recently? Unknown, but will Bush get more
chances to appoint more justices in the remaining 3 years? Stevens can't
hold out forever and Ginsburg has had some cancer problems of her own.
The theocrats are a patient lot. They have been working at this since 50s
-60s .
They are closer than they have ever been and they will step up the pressure
figuring that one of their cases will get lucky in the next decade, get the
right combination of issues/facts/judges/justices at just the right time.
It may never happen, but they sure will work hard trying to make it happen.
The one thing that blows my mind is the people, smart, intelligent people I
respect in the newsgroups, fo example, that have the "it will NEVER
happen," "it CAN'T happen," "the American people WON'T let it happen
mindset.
Absolutes (like the cap words) seldom are (absolute that is), and that sort
of mindset actually helps raise the potential of it happening one day.
Maybe not in the next 5 years, or the next 10 years. But they have time,
they are patient and they are appointing relatively yng judges and
justices.
They spent 30 years working at getting a voucher scam, ooops (grin) plan
approved. They can work that long or longer to get this bit of business
accomplished.
Imagine the feather in the cap of whichever of the many theocratic legal
groups out there that won the case that overturned Everson. They is a prize
worth pursuing for them.
Most people today do not realize that the bulk of the church state
jurisprudence that was developed, in favor of separation, in the 40s, 50s,
60s and into the 70s was developed by one major player, directly or
indirectly. That major player being Leo Pfeffer.
He advocated strict separation, he handled the oral arguments in some of
the major cases. he wrote briefs in other such cases. He helped other
lawyers write briefs and prepare to give oral arguments and he was a
writing machine, writing books, articles etc for 20 or 30 years.
Our side doesn't have a modern day Leo Pfeffer, but the other side does.
They have several of them. Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach, Jay Sekulow, the
usual cast of characters, D. James Kennedy, Dr. James Dobson to name just
a few.
Probably two or three times the number of legal activist groups and
ordinary activists groups, writers up the ying yang. Their cup runneth over
in the area of web sites online, etc
Leo Pfeffer shows the type of impact one person or a few people can have in
the right place and time with the right people on the courts and the right
climate in the country.
I don't know that this particular case would be a case that could have that
kind of influence and or impact but with this present court I would never
say NEVER. If you looked at the voodoo way they "build precedence" so
they could claim vouchers were constitutional, I would say don't take
anything for granted
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skoros to Straighten Out Everson? |
07 Feb 2006 07:39:32 AM |
|
|
INDUSTRUS MAGIC
Have been following the SCOTUS/Everson debate with some interest now
since it may have some bearing on the activities of Research Group B
who are looking for new ways of marketing our customers product ranges
over the various religious holidays. Since the furore over the Danish
cartoons there has been particular debate over whether or not to put
genitalia on a line of religious action figures. There is also the
thorny question of which figure gets the biggest piece of plastic, so
to speak.
The best thing the United States could do is to follow the example of
their legislatively more sophisticated neighbour to the north.
Ken Waddlingly
Chief Regional Organator
Industrus Magic
http://industrusmagic.tripod.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Everson, the war against continues
Everson law, the unbroken history
3 laws establishted by Everson, while under attack, still survive
Boston Defends Everson:
Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames
Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames
Mission: Overturn Everson v bd of ed
Everson was consonant with our original principles
| Re: Oh, NOW Freddie says "EVERSON IS BESIDE THE POINT" ! ! !
Revisiting Everson: My Country - Sweet Land
Revisiting Everson: Thrown Off Course
Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory
Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames
"JTEM" turns out to be pretty pathetic NET-KKKOP!
|
|
|
