On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:51:39 -0400, "bardi"
<toriley@fuse.net> posted thusly:

"joseph irvin" <j.m.irvin@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:eniAc.84475$Gx4.33267@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:10d1ij3lu9j8f14@corp.supernews.com...

"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ncd1d05tp82e87o8qu8m87lnlvhcobak0b@4ax.com...

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:51:49 -0400,
Tales_of_the_Western_World@webtv.net (Western World)
posted thusly:

Fundies lose again!

CNN.com - Court upholds Bible class ban - Jun 8, 2004
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/06/08/bible.ruling.ap/

1) The Constitution does not say a word about
"separation of church and state". There is no such
phrase any in the document.

So what. That phrase is not the guide to how the courts test
constitutionality of religious programs in government. It's called
the

Lemon

Test. Read it.

2) This ruling violates the law.

No it does not. A bunch of fundy proselytizers invading a child's
school does, however.

A school cannot

discriminate against any group that wishes to hold
meeting there,

They weren't just holding a meeting there. they were teaching a

religious

class. Big no no.

if they allow access to other groups.

This isn't a "separation of church and state", it is
discrimination against a particular religion.

You've got yourself all confused. These were seminary students
teaching

a

religious class to school kids on our dime. No other religion tried
or

tries

to do this. Your claim is without any merit at all.

This will be overturned.

Unlikely. The Supremes have already decided on such goings on and
would likely not bother to hear it.

Better read Good News Club v Milford Central School.

Just for the record, the two cases referred to above were totally
different, at least based on the CNN article. The Tn ruling apparently
concerned classes being held during school hours and without a need for
parental consent. The Milford ruling concerned the Milford School,
which by charter was open for community functions after school hours.
apples and oranges.

I stated clearly that the school could not deny one
group and let other groups do their thing, which is the
same thing you are saying, in essence. It is
discrimination.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:51:39 -0400, "bardi"
<toriley@fuse.net> posted thusly:

"joseph irvin" <j.m.irvin@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:eniAc.84475$Gx4.33267@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:10d1ij3lu9j8f14@corp.supernews.com...

posted thusly:

Fundies lose again!
CNN.com - Court upholds Bible class ban - Jun 8, 2004
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/06/08/bible.ruling.ap/

You've got yourself all confused. These were seminary students
teaching

a

religious class to school kids on our dime. No other religion tried
or

tries

to do this. Your claim is without any merit at all.

This will be overturned.

Unlikely. The Supremes have already decided on such goings on and
would likely not bother to hear it.

Better read Good News Club v Milford Central School.

Just for the record, the two cases referred to above were totally
different, at least based on the CNN article. The Tn ruling apparently
concerned classes being held during school hours and without a need for
parental consent. The Milford ruling concerned the Milford School,
which by charter was open for community functions after school hours.
apples and oranges.

I stated clearly that the school could not deny one
group and let other groups do their thing, which is the
same thing you are saying, in essence. It is
discrimination.

I stated clearly that the school could not deny one
group and let other groups do their thing, which is the
same thing you are saying, in essence. It is
discrimination. Yet the God haters jumped on me. Why?
Because they don't care about truth, but rather, only
about silencing Christians.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:51:39 -0400, "bardi"
<toriley@fuse.net> posted thusly:

"joseph irvin" <j.m.irvin@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:eniAc.84475$Gx4.33267@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:10d1ij3lu9j8f14@corp.supernews.com...

"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ncd1d05tp82e87o8qu8m87lnlvhcobak0b@4ax.com...

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:51:49 -0400,
Tales_of_the_Western_World@webtv.net (Western World)
posted thusly:

Fundies lose again!

CNN.com - Court upholds Bible class ban - Jun 8, 2004
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/06/08/bible.ruling.ap/

1) The Constitution does not say a word about
"separation of church and state". There is no such
phrase any in the document.

So what. That phrase is not the guide to how the courts test
constitutionality of religious programs in government. It's called

Lemon

Test. Read it.

2) This ruling violates the law.

No it does not. A bunch of fundy proselytizers invading a child's

does, however.

A school cannot

discriminate against any group that wishes to hold
meeting there,

They weren't just holding a meeting there. they were teaching a

religious

class. Big no no.

if they allow access to other groups.

This isn't a "separation of church and state", it is
discrimination against a particular religion.

You've got yourself all confused. These were seminary students

a

religious class to school kids on our dime. No other religion tried

tries

to do this. Your claim is without any merit at all.

This will be overturned.

Unlikely. The Supremes have already decided on such goings on and

likely not bother to hear it.

Better read Good News Club v Milford Central School.

Just for the record, the two cases referred to above were totally

at least based on the CNN article. The Tn ruling apparently concerned
classes being held during school hours and without a need for parental
consent. The Milford ruling concerned the Milford School, which by

was open for community functions after school hours. apples and oranges.

I stated clearly that the school could not deny one
group and let other groups do their thing, which is the
same thing you are saying, in essence. It is
discrimination. Yet the God haters jumped on me. Why?
Because they don't care about truth, but rather, only
about silencing Christians.

Just for the record, the two cases referred to above were totally different,
at least based on the CNN article. The Tn ruling apparently concerned
classes being held during school hours and without a need for parental
consent. The Milford ruling concerned the Milford School, which by charter
was open for community functions after school hours. apples and oranges.

I stated clearly that the school could not deny one
group and let other groups do their thing, which is the
same thing you are saying, in essence. It is
discrimination.

Yet the God haters jumped on me. Why?

Because they don't care about truth, but rather, only
about silencing Christians.

"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b0c4d09ttiorlartsli7hb6l8ikut9g2mk@4ax.com...

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:01:30 GMT, "joseph irvin"
<j.m.irvin@worldnet.att.net> posted thusly:

CNN.com - Court upholds Bible class ban - Jun 8, 2004
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/06/08/bible.ruling.ap/

1) The Constitution does not say a word about
"separation of church and state". There is no such
phrase any in the document.

So what. That phrase is not the guide to how the courts test
constitutionality of religious programs in government. It's called
the Lemon Test. Read it.

2) This ruling violates the law.

No it does not. A bunch of fundy proselytizers invading a child's

school

does, however.

A school cannot

discriminate against any group that wishes to hold
meeting there,

They weren't just holding a meeting there. they were teaching a

religious

class. Big no no.

if they allow access to other groups.

This isn't a "separation of church and state", it is
discrimination against a particular religion.

You've got yourself all confused. These were seminary students
teaching

a

religious class to school kids on our dime. No other religion
tried or tries to do this. Your claim is without any merit at all.

This will be overturned.

Unlikely. The Supremes have already decided on such goings on and
would likely not bother to hear it.

Better read Good News Club v Milford Central School.

"By denying the [Good News] Club access to the school's
limited public forum on the ground that the Club was
religious in nature, Milford discriminated against the
Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of
the Free Speech Clause."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZS.html

Sorry, bub, this supports me and not you.

Good news club has nothing to do with the Tenn School bible class.

But, why not surprise us and provide evidence of an original thought.

Oh wait, I forgot, you're a fundy ***** for brains moron.

"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b0c4d09ttiorlartsli7hb6l8ikut9g2mk@4ax.com...

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:01:30 GMT, "joseph irvin"
<j.m.irvin@worldnet.att.net> posted thusly:

CNN.com - Court upholds Bible class ban - Jun 8, 2004
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/06/08/bible.ruling.ap/

1) The Constitution does not say a word about
"separation of church and state". There is no such
phrase any in the document.

So what. That phrase is not the guide to how the courts test
constitutionality of religious programs in government. It's called the
Lemon Test. Read it.

2) This ruling violates the law.

No it does not. A bunch of fundy proselytizers invading a child's

school

does, however.

A school cannot

discriminate against any group that wishes to hold
meeting there,

They weren't just holding a meeting there. they were teaching a

religious

class. Big no no.

if they allow access to other groups.

This isn't a "separation of church and state", it is
discrimination against a particular religion.

You've got yourself all confused. These were seminary students teaching

a

religious class to school kids on our dime. No other religion tried or
tries to do this. Your claim is without any merit at all.

This will be overturned.

Unlikely. The Supremes have already decided on such goings on and would
likely not bother to hear it.

Better read Good News Club v Milford Central School.

"By denying the [Good News] Club access to the school's
limited public forum on the ground that the Club was
religious in nature, Milford discriminated against the
Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of
the Free Speech Clause."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZS.html

Sorry, bub, this supports me and not you.

Good news club has nothing to do with the Tenn School bible class.

But, why not surprise us and provide evidence of an original thought.

Oh wait, I forgot, you're a fundy ***** for brains moron.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:27:01 GMT, "Adam Marczyk"
<ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> posted thusly:

CNN.com - Court upholds Bible class ban - Jun 8, 2004
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/06/08/bible.ruling.ap/

1) The Constitution does not say a word about
"separation of church and state". There is no such
phrase any in the document.

So what.

I think we're done right there.

By that same argument, the following concepts which are not explicitly
mentioned by name in the Bible would have to be eliminated from
Christianity:

Not even close to the same thing. And remember, you
said, "concepts".

Trinity,

Stated in the Bible. All three are mentioned as God.

Rapture,

Agreed.

Second Coming,

Jesus Himself proclaimed this.

Original Sin,

Sorry, read Genesis and the NT confirms that sin came
by Adam.

Transcendence,

That's in there too.

Omniscience,

Very well implied in Scripture.

Omnipresence,

Also implied.

Inerrancy,

Also implied.

Incarnation,

Stated clearly. Jesus was the child of a virgin and
the Holy Ghost came upon her.

Sermon on the Mount,

Jesus was on the mount and gave a sermon.

Last Supper,

The Bible notes His last supper with His disciples.

Lord's Prayer,

Jesus our Lord prayed a prayer that is recorded, which
makes it the Lord's Prayer.

Monotheism

The Bible states that there is one true God.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

No, I don't. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say
anything about a separation of church and state. That
came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, which
is not the Constitution and it is misquoted in that he
doesn't say that the state must silence religious
speech in public institutions. Yet that's what you
think it means. The Constitution actually says that no
one can prohibit the free exercise of religion. That
does not equate to silencing religious speech.


--

± Pastor Dave Raymond ±

"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\


GODISNOWHERE (now read it again)



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----