| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2005 12:04:43 PM |
| Object: |
Suit filed over prayer |
Suit filed over prayer
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS/511220402/1001
New Brunswick Home News Tribune - New Brunswick,NJ,USA
.... could expose the district to liability under the US Constitution's
establishment clause, which protects the separation of church and state by
prohibiting ...
**************************************************************
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: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer |
27 Nov 2005 06:10:37 AM |
|
|
<snippet>
The complaint filed yesterday contends, "The prohibition against Coach
Borden demonstrating respect for his team and the team prayers undermines
his credibility as head coach, is a sign of disrespect and irreverence for
his players and the team prayers, forces Coach Borden to . . . discriminate
against the team prayers and his players, interferes with his academic
freedom, interferes with his freedom of association, interferes with his
freedom of speech, interferes with his liberty of movement, invades his
privacy and violates all that it means, and has ever meant to him, to be a
high school football coach in America."
</snippet>
The rules also deprives the Coach of his freedom of religious exercise.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lmm8o158n53s5o51ksao57oahbaj0d2nn9@4ax.com...
Suit filed over prayer
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS/511220402/1001
New Brunswick Home News Tribune - New Brunswick,NJ,USA
... could expose the district to liability under the US Constitution's
establishment clause, which protects the separation of church and state by
prohibiting ...
**************************************************************
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: Suit filed over prayer |
27 Nov 2005 11:58:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:10:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snippet>
The complaint filed yesterday contends, "The prohibition against Coach
Borden demonstrating respect for his team and the team prayers undermines
his credibility as head coach, is a sign of disrespect and irreverence for
his players and the team prayers, forces Coach Borden to . . . discriminate
against the team prayers and his players, interferes with his academic
freedom, interferes with his freedom of association, interferes with his
freedom of speech, interferes with his liberty of movement, invades his
privacy and violates all that it means, and has ever meant to him, to be a
high school football coach in America."
</snippet>
The rules also deprives the Coach of his freedom of religious exercise.
No, it doesn't Jeffy
The coach is a government employee
He's not prohibited from practicing his religion any
way he sees fit--OUTSIDE of his official duties.
It is preventing government (him) from forcing his
beliefs others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer |
29 Nov 2005 01:47:34 AM |
|
|
<Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com> wrote in message
news:elhko1phcgqu2o6vrll68ist7i29ui440n@4ax.com...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:10:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snippet>
The complaint filed yesterday contends, "The prohibition against Coach
Borden demonstrating respect for his team and the team prayers undermines
his credibility as head coach, is a sign of disrespect and irreverence for
his players and the team prayers, forces Coach Borden to . . .
discriminate
against the team prayers and his players, interferes with his academic
freedom, interferes with his freedom of association, interferes with his
freedom of speech, interferes with his liberty of movement, invades his
privacy and violates all that it means, and has ever meant to him, to be a
high school football coach in America."
</snippet>
The rules also deprives the Coach of his freedom of religious exercise.
No, it doesn't Jeffy
The coach is a government employee
He's not prohibited from practicing his religion any
way he sees fit--OUTSIDE of his official duties.
It is preventing government (him) from forcing his
beliefs others.
But he isn't trying to force his belief on others, he only wants to bow his
head or kneel down, or both, when his players elect to pray. He is required
to forgo his religion while at school, and anybody thqt actually HAS
religion knows that it isn't something that you turn off and on as you walk
through the gates. People that really have religion will stop for a moment
and give silence to those that are practicing their religion.
I hope this coach wins.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
28 Nov 2005 06:06:19 AM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:10:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snippet>
The complaint filed yesterday contends, "The prohibition against Coach
Borden demonstrating respect for his team and the team prayers undermines
his credibility as head coach, is a sign of disrespect and irreverence for
his players and the team prayers, forces Coach Borden to . . . discriminate
against the team prayers and his players, interferes with his academic
freedom, interferes with his freedom of association, interferes with his
freedom of speech, interferes with his liberty of movement, invades his
privacy and violates all that it means, and has ever meant to him, to be a
high school football coach in America."
</snippet>
The rules also deprives the Coach of his freedom of religious exercise.
No, it doesn't Jeffy
The coach is a government employee
The coach is a State government exployee and the States have the 10th
Amendment protected sovereign power to legislate religion since the 1st
Amendment explicitly prohibited the power to legislate religion only to
Congress (the federal government).
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
He's not prohibited from practicing his religion any
way he sees fit--OUTSIDE of his official duties.
There are no laws prohibiting the coach from practicing his 1st A.
guaranteed freedom of religion expression as it concerns this case.
The only "laws" against such free religious speech are being concocted
by activist judges and people like Knickkkers who want to impose their
unconstitutional, anti-religious expression BELIEFS on everybody else.
It is preventing government (him) from forcing his
beliefs others.
By stubbornly refusing to distinguish between federal and State
governments, you are selfishly insisting insisting on a wrong,
anti-religious expression model of the government. The Founding
Fathers made major distinctions between federal and State governments
and decided to trust the States with the care of our religious
freedoms:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
The above extract reflects the 10th Amendment protected sovereign
powers of the States.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer |
27 Nov 2005 07:01:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:10:37 -0600, Jeff Strickland wrote:
<snippet>
The complaint filed yesterday contends, "The prohibition against Coach
Borden demonstrating respect for his team and the team prayers undermines
his credibility as head coach, is a sign of disrespect and irreverence for
his players and the team prayers, forces Coach Borden to . . . discriminate
against the team prayers and his players, interferes with his academic
freedom, interferes with his freedom of association, interferes with his
freedom of speech, interferes with his liberty of movement, invades his
privacy and violates all that it means, and has ever meant to him, to be a
high school football coach in America."
</snippet>
The rules also deprives the Coach of his freedom of religious exercise.
Yeah and rules deprive serial killers of their freedom of religious
exercise. "God told me to doit."
George W C Bush43 has deprived an estimated 27,000 to 31,000
Iraquis of their freedom of religious exercise.
The Deceiver-in-Chief has also deprived over 2,100 Americans of
their freedom of religious exercise.
-------------------------------
From ESPN.com:
A veteran central New Jersey high school football coach has
resigned after being told by school officials he could no longer
lead his team in pregame prayer.
East Brunswick coach Marcus Borden was told last Friday by Schools
Superintendent Jo Ann Magistro that some parents had complained
about prayers Borden initiated at pregame meals and before the
games.
After being told he would have to stop leading or taking part in
the prayers, Borden stepped down from his position, just hours
before his team's 21-0 loss to Sayreville that evening. "I'm very
disappointed," Borden said in an interview with News 12 New Jersey
Tuesday. "Do I feel we were violating someone's rights? I don't
think so."
And: "But school officials, who emphasized that they did not force
Borden to resign, said some students felt uncomfortable with the
prayer and their concerns should be treated with respect."
--------------------------------------
.. . . said some students felt uncomfortable with the prayer
and their concerns should be treated with respect."
--------------------------------------
But, apparently, some of the students didn't like a school coach
cramming "his" religion down their throats.
It appears that this beloved ***** felt that "he" could give his
players the choice of "his" religion.
The rules also deprives the Coach of his freedom of religious exercise.
Perhaps this coach - who enjoys cramming religion down students'
throats - would be happier at the Air Force Academy where,
according to reports, religion is "crammed" down students' throats
at the taxpayers' expense.
But, oops!, I forgot that Christians are victims.
Be born again, watching Lifetime Network.
Gray Shockley
------------------------
The leech's kiss, the squid's embrace,
The prurient ape's defiling touch:
And do you like the human race?
No, not much.
- Aldous Huxley
_Ape And Essence_
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lmm8o158n53s5o51ksao57oahbaj0d2nn9@4ax.com...
Suit filed over prayer
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS/511220402/1001
New Brunswick Home News Tribune - New Brunswick,NJ,USA
... could expose the district to liability under the US Constitution's
establishment clause, which protects the separation of church and state by
prohibiting ...
**************************************************************
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 á 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: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer |
27 Nov 2005 07:44:51 AM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:10:37 -0600, Jeff Strickland wrote:
<snippet>
The complaint filed yesterday contends, "The prohibition against Coach
Borden demonstrating respect for his team and the team prayers undermin=
es
his credibility as head coach, is a sign of disrespect and irreverence =
for
his players and the team prayers, forces Coach Borden to . . . discrimi=
nate
against the team prayers and his players, interferes with his academic
freedom, interferes with his freedom of association, interferes with his
freedom of speech, interferes with his liberty of movement, invades his
privacy and violates all that it means, and has ever meant to him, to b=
e a
high school football coach in America."
</snippet>
The rules also deprives the Coach of his freedom of religious exercise.
Yeah and rules deprive serial killers of their freedom of religious
exercise. "God told me to doit."
John 16:2-3
George W C Bush43 has deprived an estimated 27,000 to 31,000
Iraquis of their freedom of religious exercise.
Bush43 is not quite up to Hussein's number of depriving an estimated
200,000+ Iraqis of their lives.
The Deceiver-in-Chief has also deprived over 2,100 Americans of
their freedom of religious exercise.
Consider that you are inadvertently projecting your reality distortion
field into Bush43.
-------------------------------
From ESPN.com:
A veteran central New Jersey high school football coach has
resigned after being told by school officials he could no longer
lead his team in pregame prayer.
East Brunswick coach Marcus Borden was told last Friday by Schools
Superintendent Jo Ann Magistro that some parents had complained
about prayers Borden initiated at pregame meals and before the
games.
After being told he would have to stop leading or taking part in
the prayers, Borden stepped down from his position, just hours
before his team's 21-0 loss to Sayreville that evening. "I'm very
disappointed," Borden said in an interview with News 12 New Jersey
Tuesday. "Do I feel we were violating someone's rights? I don't
think so."
And: "But school officials, who emphasized that they did not force
Borden to resign, said some students felt uncomfortable with the
prayer and their concerns should be treated with respect."
--------------------------------------
. . . said some students felt uncomfortable with the prayer
and their concerns should be treated with respect."
--------------------------------------
But, apparently, some of the students didn't like a school coach
cramming "his" religion down their throats.
It appears that this beloved ***** felt that "he" could give his
players the choice of "his" religion.
The rules also deprives the Coach of his freedom of religious exercise.
Perhaps this coach - who enjoys cramming religion down students'
throats - would be happier at the Air Force Academy where,
according to reports, religion is "crammed" down students' throats
at the taxpayers' expense.
But, oops!, I forgot that Christians are victims.
Be born again, watching Lifetime Network.
Gray Shockley
------------------------
The leech's kiss, the squid's embrace,
The prurient ape's defiling touch:
And do you like the human race?
No, not much.
- Aldous Huxley
_Ape And Essence_
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lmm8o158n53s5o51ksao57oahbaj0d2nn9@4ax.com...
Suit filed over prayer
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=3D/20051122/NEWS/5112204=
02/1001
New Brunswick Home News Tribune - New Brunswick,NJ,USA
... could expose the district to liability under the US Constitution's
establishment clause, which protects the separation of church and stat=
e by
prohibiting ...
**************************************************************
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 =E1 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members f=
rom
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. Wo=
rds
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is w=
hy
"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. 199=
2)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
=20
=20
=20
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer |
28 Nov 2005 12:03:19 AM |
|
|
On 26 Nov 2005 23:44:51 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
John 16:2-3
You can't prove he said that, Freddie
You can only BELIEVE he said that
George W C Bush43 has deprived an estimated 27,000 to 31,000
Iraquis of their freedom of religious exercise.
Bush43 is not quite up to Hussein's number of depriving an estimated
200,000+ Iraqis of their lives.
We didn't invade iraq because Saddam did that, Freddie
Did you forget?
The Deceiver-in-Chief has also deprived over 2,100 Americans of
their freedom of religious exercise.
Consider that you are inadvertently projecting your reality distortion
field into Bush43.
Freddoe
Bush Lied to us
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer |
28 Nov 2005 05:10:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 26 Nov 2005 23:44:51 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
John 16:2-3
You can't prove he said that, Freddie
You can only BELIEVE he said that
You can't prove that he didn't say that.
You can only BELIEVE that he didn't say that.
But just like an activist judge, you not only seem to think that
whatever you BELIEVE becomes law but you impose your reality on other
people just like you tried to do with me concerning John 16:2-3; and
then you complain when "Christians" impose their BELIEFS on you. And
with respect to John 16:2-3, you also ignored the point that "God told
me to do it" is unbiblical where murdering people in God's name is
concerned.
George W C Bush43 has deprived an estimated 27,000 to 31,000
Iraquis of their freedom of religious exercise.
Bush43 is not quite up to Hussein's number of depriving an estimated
200,000+ Iraqis of their lives.
We didn't invade iraq because Saddam did that, Freddie
Bush43 had several reasons for invading Iraq; help prevent further 9/11
like terrorist attacks, stop Hussein's oppression of the Iraqi people,
possibility of nuclear and chemical weapons.
Did you forget?
The problem is not that I am forgetting but that you and people like
you are rewriting history to attack Bush43. Indeed, consider how you
are also butchering the common sense interpretation of the
Constitution.
The Deceiver-in-Chief has also deprived over 2,100 Americans of
their freedom of religious exercise.
You evidently didn't like remark about Hussein depriving 200,000+
Iraqis of their lives.
Consider that you are inadvertently projecting your reality distortion
field into Bush43.
Freddoe
Bush Lied to us
You lie to yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jimjames5417" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer |
25 Nov 2005 08:53:38 AM |
|
|
Do all Demon-rats hate America - or is it just the ones on this board??
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer |
25 Nov 2005 03:55:58 PM |
|
|
On 25 Nov 2005 00:53:38 -0800, "jimjames5417"
<jameswright@usa.net> wrote:
Do all Demon-rats hate America - or is it just the ones on this board??
By "hating America", do you mean championing ending
slavery, child labor, unfair wages, unequal
opportunity, alleviation of old-age poverty, hunger,
sickness?
Or, perhaps, the fight for adoption of civil rights,
voting rights, women's rights?
Perhaps if conservatives "hated America" as much, we'd
be a lot better off---eh?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer |
25 Nov 2005 03:06:02 PM |
|
|
On 25 Nov 2005 00:53:38 -0800, "jimjames5417" <jameswright@usa.net>
wrote:
Do all Demon-rats hate America - or is it just the ones on this board??
Hmmm, you don't read too well do you? Come back when you've finished
kindergarten.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
26 Nov 2005 01:25:41 AM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Suit filed over prayer
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS/511220402/1001
New Brunswick Home News Tribune - New Brunswick,NJ,USA
... could expose the district to liability under the US Constitution's
establishment clause, which protects the separation of church and state by
prohibiting ...
The only entity that can violate the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR
is Congress. Otherwise, violations of the so-called constitutional
principle of absolute church-state separation happen only when
Constitution-ignoring, anti-religious expression activist judges
unlawfully legislate phantom church-state separation "laws" from the
bench.
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chip Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
26 Nov 2005 03:44:26 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1132968341.471575.178050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Suit filed over prayer
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS/511220402
/1001 New Brunswick Home News Tribune - New Brunswick,NJ,USA
... could expose the district to liability under the US
Constitution's establishment clause, which protects the separation of
church and state by prohibiting ...
The only entity that can violate the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR
is Congress. Otherwise, violations of the so-called constitutional
principle of absolute church-state separation happen only when
Constitution-ignoring, anti-religious expression activist judges
unlawfully legislate phantom church-state separation "laws" from the
bench.
You are quite incorrect. The 14th amendment to the Constitution says
otherwise.
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR
alt.education
<snipped for brevity>
--
---
Chip
Oderint dum metuant
-Lucius Accius
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steamboat" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Suit filed over prayer; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
26 Nov 2005 02:10:48 AM |
|
|
On 25 Nov 2005 17:25:41 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Suit filed over prayer
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS/511220402/1001
New Brunswick Home News Tribune - New
Brunswick,NJ,USA
... could expose the district to liability under
the US Constitution's
establishment clause, which protects the
separation of church and state by
prohibiting ...
The only entity that can violate the 1st Amendment
of the federal BOR
is Congress. Otherwise, violations of the
so-called constitutional
principle of absolute church-state separation
happen only when
Constitution-ignoring, anti-religious expression
activist judges
unlawfully legislate phantom church-state
separation "laws" from the
bench.
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the
United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
Ditto for liberal judges! Trouble is, when one
judge makes an interpretation, two people will see
it in a quite opposite light. The interpretation
depends more on you than it does the judge.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from
alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer; discussion fails 10th Amendment test. |
27 Nov 2005 06:53:34 AM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Suit filed over prayer
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=3D/20051122/NEWS/511220402/=
1001
New Brunswick Home News Tribune - New Brunswick,NJ,USA
... could expose the district to liability under the US Constitution's
establishment clause, which protects the separation of church and state by
prohibiting ...
Given the 1st Amendment prohibits only Congress from making certains
kind of laws, particularly laws dealing with religion, Congress is the
only entity that can violate the 1st Amendment in the first place.
Given that there are no federal laws that stifle free religious speech,
separationists and atheists necessarily have to drag church-state
separation "offenders" in front of Constitution-ignoring activist
judges. This is because such judges are willing to unlawfully
legislate anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench on a case by
case basis, the common sense interpretation of the Constitution be
damned.
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
The bottom line problem with church-state separation issues is that the
American people are constitutionally illiterate and consequently don't
put their foot down when activist judges ignore the checks and balances
of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendment where our religious freedoms are
concerned.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer; discussion fails 10th Amendment test. |
28 Nov 2005 12:16:37 AM |
|
|
On 26 Nov 2005 22:53:34 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Suit filed over prayer
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS/511220402/1001
New Brunswick Home News Tribune - New Brunswick,NJ,USA
... could expose the district to liability under the US Constitution's
establishment clause, which protects the separation of church and state by
prohibiting ...
Given the 1st Amendment prohibits only Congress from making certains
kind of laws, particularly laws dealing with religion, Congress is the
only entity that can violate the 1st Amendment in the first place.
Congress cannot violate the 1st amendment. But the 1st
amendment is NOT all sacrosanct. (you cannot excercise
unlimited speech in all venues).
Given that there are no federal laws that stifle free religious speech,
separationists and atheists necessarily have to drag church-state
separation "offenders" in front of Constitution-ignoring activist
judges.
you're babbling again Freddie.
Find me a law that precludes anyone other than
GOVERNMENT from proslytizing or promoting, excercising
religion that isn't related to protecting others
rights.
This is because such judges are willing to unlawfully
legislate anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench on a case by
case basis, the common sense interpretation of the Constitution be
damned.
If laws aren't supposed to be decided on a "case to
case" basis, how in ***** do YOU think they should be?
You don't think ruling that "separate but equal...." is
Common sense?
How about ruling that black people are WHOLE people,
instead of 3/5ths of a White person?
The bottom line problem with church-state separation issues is that the
American people are constitutionally illiterate ...........
Not by half what you are, Freddie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer; discussion fails 10th Amendment test. |
28 Nov 2005 03:11:20 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 26 Nov 2005 22:53:34 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Suit filed over prayer
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS/511220402/1001
New Brunswick Home News Tribune - New Brunswick,NJ,USA
... could expose the district to liability under the US Constitution's
establishment clause, which protects the separation of church and state by
prohibiting ...
Given the 1st Amendment prohibits only Congress from making certains
kind of laws, particularly laws dealing with religion, Congress is the
only entity that can violate the 1st Amendment in the first place.
Congress cannot violate the 1st amendment. But the 1st
amendment is NOT all sacrosanct. (you cannot excercise
unlimited speech in all venues).
Where are you coming from? :^(
Despite your unthinking statement and Congress and the 1st A., if
Congress makes a law that respects or prohibits an establishment of
religion then Congress is in violation of the 1st Amendment, plain and
simple.
Given that there are no federal laws that stifle free religious speech,
separationists and atheists necessarily have to drag church-state
separation "offenders" in front of Constitution-ignoring activist
judges.
you're babbling again Freddie.
Find me a law that precludes anyone other than
GOVERNMENT from proslytizing or promoting, excercising
religion that isn't related to protecting others
rights.
Your continued use of the word "government" indicates that you have
stubbornly chosen to disregard that the Founding Fathers uniquely gave
the States the care of our religious freedoms:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
You undoubtedly want the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of
the States to just go away.
This is because such judges are willing to unlawfully
legislate anti-religious expression "laws" from the bench on a case by
case basis, the common sense interpretation of the Constitution be
damned.
If laws aren't supposed to be decided on a "case to
case" basis, how in ***** do YOU think they should be?
My point about judges unlawfully legislating from the bench not
surprisingly when in one ear and out the other with you. Again, where
activist judges and church-state separation issues are concerned, the
only "laws" in question are phantom, anti-religious expression "laws"
that corrupt, activist judges concoct on the spot in the first place.
You don't think ruling that "separate but equal...." is
Common sense?
How about ruling that black people are WHOLE people,
instead of 3/5ths of a White person?
The bottom line problem with church-state separation issues is that the
American people are constitutionally illiterate ...........
Not by half what you are, Freddie.
The American people are hopefully not willing to twist the meaning of
the amendments like you and activist judges do when they do learn about
the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Suit filed over prayer; discussion fails 10th Amendment test. |
28 Nov 2005 04:30:20 AM |
|
|
On 27 Nov 2005 19:11:20 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
\
Despite your unthinking statement and Congress and the 1st A., if
Congress makes a law that respects or prohibits an establishment of
religion then Congress is in violation of the 1st Amendment, plain and
simple.
Congress passes election laws that prohibit various
aspects of campaigning in churches. Violation means
they could lose tax exempt status.
But brushing aside your ignorance whilst I laugh at
you, congress can't pass laws against
individuals/people barring them from religion.
You have every right to plaster your dashboard with a
plastic jesus. But let that obstruct your view, and
see how fuckng fast "government" will get you for it.
THe issue is of GOVERNMENT's involvment in religious
dogma.
Find me a law that precludes anyone other than
GOVERNMENT from proslytizing or promoting, excercising
religion that isn't related to protecting others
rights.
Your continued use of the word "government" indicates that you have
stubbornly chosen to disregard that the Founding Fathers uniquely gave
the States the care of our religious freedoms:
They did not.
There is NO law, then or now that allows any government
to "care for" religion in any manner.
I don't give a rats ***** if you "read" your silly
interpretation a hundred times, it still is
longstanding constitutional doctrine that a "wall"
precludes ALL government from that activity
Judge Moore-loon is out of a job because he promoted
that nonsense.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
***** Jefferson
He's dead.
Whatever he did, isn't law. You just quoted jefferson
as IF that carried something other than historical
significance.
You undoubtedly want the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of
the States to just go away.
States are not soveriegn entities, Freddie.
States "sovereign" powers are subject to USSC "reading"
and interpretation. Some are never touched because
they are specific enough to insure few, or no case law
has to deal with them
Some are taken because there is legitimate legal theory
to be resolved.
But if the USSC decides that "sovereignty" is lesser
than the federal prerogative, then states MUST give
way. That is the gist of the Judge Moore crap.
If laws aren't supposed to be decided on a "case to
case" basis, how in ***** do YOU think they should be?
My point about judges unlawfully legislating from the bench
That's your SILLY opinion, freddie
Opinions are required to be backed with facts and
evidence---not inane BELIEFS
The American people are hopefully not willing to twist the meaning of
the amendments
"Twisting" the amendments is the duty of the USSC.
Judges have the DUTY to review law.
Higher courts hear appeals on those rulings
Ultimately, those few issues are resolved by a rule of
law---the USSC presiding.
Period
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
