14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law

Sociology > Education > 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 10

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	"buckeye"
Date:	11 Jan 2008 05:23:33 AM
Object:	14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law

11.15.07
Mandatory Moment of Silence Blocked!
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/15/mandatory-moment-of-silence-blocked/
01.10.08
Dawn Sherman Featured in the Chicago Tribune
http://friendlyatheist.com/
The court decision
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/Gettleman071115.pdf
***************************************************************
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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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: "Dag Yo"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	11 Jan 2008 05:36:20 AM

Awesome. The world just became a slightly better place.
.

User: "buckeye"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	11 Jan 2008 06:21:18 AM

Dag Yo <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote:

:|Awesome. The world just became a slightly better place.

Ellery Schempp was just 16 when he began the legal process that ultimately
resulted in Abington Township School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203
(1963),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp
***************************************************************
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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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: "jcon"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	11 Jan 2008 10:21:08 AM

On Jan 11, 5:23 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:

11.15.07
Mandatory Moment of Silence Blocked!http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/15/mandatory-moment-of-silence-blo...

The hilarious thing is to imagine that your typical adolescent will
think about God during the minute of silence.
I live in Illinois. I asked my 14 year old what he thought about
during the moment of silence. He said, "You know, girls, music,
the same stuff I think about during class."
Amen.
-jc
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 09:43:22 AM

buckeye wrote:

Seems to me this more about banning a moment for optional prayer, i.e. a
desire to have freedom **from** religion, rather than one of religion.
.

User: "Phlip"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 08:48:18 AM

LibertySR wrote:

Seems to me this more about banning a moment for optional prayer, i.e. a
desire to have freedom **from** religion, rather than one of religion.

In theory, offering the prayerful an opportunity before an important event
(a school day) represents the Government /allowing/ religion
without /promoting/ it. That's a good hair to split, and studies have shown
that silent meditation is good for everyone, even the anti-religion nuts.
....However, back when I had to do that fucking thing, I always meditated
on "Gee it's fun to be used as a political football, so evil politicians
can exploit our single-issue voters, and trick them into voting against
their own interests!"
--
Phlip
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596510657/
^ assert_xpath
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 10:08:46 AM

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:48:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
Phlip <phlip2005@gmail.com> wrote in
<2A5ij.33678$pq.32244@newsfe24.lga>:

LibertySR wrote:

Seems to me this more about banning a moment for optional prayer, i.e. a
desire to have freedom **from** religion, rather than one of religion.

In theory, it is possible to write a statute that is constitutional.
Illinois did not write anything close to such a statute. Of course, they
probably weren't trying -- it was just a sop to the religious zealots
who want to destroy the First Amendment and think that, somehow, if it
is destroyed, their personal religion will be the one that is lorded
over everyone.

...However, back when I had to do that fucking thing, I always meditated
on "Gee it's fun to be used as a political football, so evil politicians
can exploit our single-issue voters, and trick them into voting against
their own interests!"

Or as the judge said "da Bears".
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 10:22:41 AM

Free Lunch wrote:

I think you've hit on the personal motivation of many of those who would
support this injunction. That you think those with differing views on
the 1st amendment are really out to "destroy it" shows you're more
comfortable demonizing (irony intended) those with whom you disagree
rather than debating with them.
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 10:38:45 AM

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:41 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<LradnW5kw4DMdBXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

You have made up your mind without even trying to understand what the
judge did. In order to protect yourself from considering the possibility
that you are wrong, you have chosen to attack the judge and those who
support his decision.
How possibly could anyone discuss this decision with you?
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 10:51:18 AM

Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:41 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<LradnW5kw4DMdBXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

You have made up your mind without even trying to understand what the
judge did. In order to protect yourself from considering the possibility
that you are wrong, you have chosen to attack the judge and those who
support his decision.

How possibly could anyone discuss this decision with you?

Posed as if a comment like "sop to the religious zealots who want to
destroy the First Amendment" didn't come from your keyboard.
I'm happy to discuss the decision. The vagueness principle on which is
rests was incorrectly applied. The new law is no less specific than the
old one. How is it that this new law somehow is likely to be found
invalid on that basis?
Additionally, the mandatory nature at the school system level is no real
difference since the old law gave the teacher the authority to impose a
moment of silence.
I think what's driving the injunction is fear of an ulterior motive on
the part of those who ratified the law. You've said this in so many
words, and I suspect it's also what drove the judge to find "vagueness"
where none had existed before.
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 11:02:20 AM

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:51:18 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<LradnWRkw4CbbRXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:22:41 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<LradnW5kw4DMdBXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

You have made up your mind without even trying to understand what the
judge did. In order to protect yourself from considering the possibility
that you are wrong, you have chosen to attack the judge and those who
support his decision.

How possibly could anyone discuss this decision with you?

Posed as if a comment like "sop to the religious zealots who want to
destroy the First Amendment" didn't come from your keyboard.

There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.

I'm happy to discuss the decision. The vagueness principle on which is
rests was incorrectly applied. The new law is no less specific than the
old one. How is it that this new law somehow is likely to be found
invalid on that basis?

The old law might not have met the standards of the Supreme Court. That
appears to be part of the reason for the 1990 and 2003 amendments.

Additionally, the mandatory nature at the school system level is no real
difference since the old law gave the teacher the authority to impose a
moment of silence.

So now, on top of everything else, you think that the State of Illinois
gets to violate the First Amendment rights of the teachers as well as
the students.

I think what's driving the injunction is fear of an ulterior motive on
the part of those who ratified the law. You've said this in so many
words, and I suspect it's also what drove the judge to find "vagueness"
where none had existed before.

That's what happens when supposed Christians have a long and
well-documented trail of lies in trying to get around the First
Amendment and force their religious doctrines on others. Read Kitzmiller
<http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf> to see to
what extent they will lie and what a conservative, Republican, Christian
judge had to say about their behavior. Christians should be embarrassed
about how dishonest some of their coreligionists are.
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 11:23:07 AM

Free Lunch wrote:

There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.

Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that
state think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say
that there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within
a public school.

So now, on top of everything else, you think that the State of Illinois
gets to violate the First Amendment rights of the teachers as well as
the students.

Hardly. My point is that the old law was no less mandatory in its way
than the new, yet the old law was never overturned (I am not aware of
any earlier challenges to it; if you are I'd be happy to hear about them).

That's what happens when supposed Christians have a long and
well-documented trail of lies in trying to get around the First
Amendment and force their religious doctrines on others.

Overturning a law because you don't like its advocates is hardly sound
legal reasoning and is, one could argue, completely counter to our form
of government.
Read Kitzmiller

<http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf> to see to
what extent they will lie and what a conservative, Republican, Christian
judge had to say about their behavior. Christians should be embarrassed
about how dishonest some of their coreligionists are.

There are zealots on both sides of the political spectrum that care
little for law or due process. If you think this sort of behavior is
limited to the far right you're naive. Citing their behavior is hardly
relevant. The issue at hand is this law and this decision.
.

User: "thomas p."
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 01:03:26 PM

"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...

Free Lunch wrote:

There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.

Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that state
think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say that
there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within a
public school.

If the courts are not to rule on the constitutionality of laws who is?

So now, on top of everything else, you think that the State of Illinois
gets to violate the First Amendment rights of the teachers as well as
the students.

Hardly. My point is that the old law was no less mandatory in its way
than the new, yet the old law was never overturned (I am not aware of any
earlier challenges to it; if you are I'd be happy to hear about them).

That's what happens when supposed Christians have a long and
well-documented trail of lies in trying to get around the First
Amendment and force their religious doctrines on others.

Overturning a law because you don't like its advocates is hardly sound
legal reasoning and is, one could argue, completely counter to our form of
government.

Do you have any evidence that it was overturned because the judges did not
like its advocates?

Read Kitzmiller

There are zealots on both sides of the political spectrum that care little
for law or due process. If you think this sort of behavior is limited to
the far right you're naive. Citing their behavior is hardly relevant.
The issue at hand is this law and this decision.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 02:36:48 PM

thomas p. wrote:

"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...

Free Lunch wrote:

There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.

Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that state
think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say that
there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within a
public school.

If the courts are not to rule on the constitutionality of laws who is?

They are, of course, allowed to rule on constitutionality. They are not
supposed to rule on the validity of the "purpose" of the law. Read
Free Lunch's post carefully: "There is no legitimate state purpose in
passing a law that includes a moment of silence for prayer." That's not
questioning the constitutionality, but states there is no proper reason
for doing such thing. That is not the court's call.

So now, on top of everything else, you think that the State of Illinois
gets to violate the First Amendment rights of the teachers as well as
the students.

Hardly. My point is that the old law was no less mandatory in its way
than the new, yet the old law was never overturned (I am not aware of any
earlier challenges to it; if you are I'd be happy to hear about them).

That's what happens when supposed Christians have a long and
well-documented trail of lies in trying to get around the First
Amendment and force their religious doctrines on others.

Overturning a law because you don't like its advocates is hardly sound
legal reasoning and is, one could argue, completely counter to our form of
government.

Do you have any evidence that it was overturned because the judges did not
like its advocates?

No, that is supposition on my part, and I've said as much elsewhere in
this thread. The inconsistency of his application of the vagueness
principle does open up his motivation into question, IMO. This misuse
of an established principle is the most common means be which a judge
illegitimately imposes his or her preference on a case (this is true for
both liberal and conservative activism).
.

User: "thomas p."
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 05:13:06 AM

"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:LradnZlnw4B9uRTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...

thomas p. wrote:

"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...

Free Lunch wrote:

There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.

If the courts are not to rule on the constitutionality of laws who is?

They are, of course, allowed to rule on constitutionality. They are not
supposed to rule on the validity of the "purpose" of the law. Read Free
Lunch's post carefully: "There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a
law that includes a moment of silence for prayer." That's not questioning
the constitutionality, but states there is no proper reason for doing such
thing. That is not the court's call.

The court was quite properly pointing out that the purpose was religious and
therefore unconstitutional. The one institution that can determine if the
court ruled improperly would be a higher court not you.

So now, on top of everything else, you think that the State of Illinois
gets to violate the First Amendment rights of the teachers as well as
the students.

That's what happens when supposed Christians have a long and
well-documented trail of lies in trying to get around the First
Amendment and force their religious doctrines on others.

Overturning a law because you don't like its advocates is hardly sound
legal reasoning and is, one could argue, completely counter to our form
of government.

Do you have any evidence that it was overturned because the judges did
not like its advocates?

No, that is supposition on my part, and I've said as much elsewhere in
this thread. The inconsistency of his application of the vagueness
principle does open up his motivation into question, IMO. This misuse of
an established principle is the most common means be which a judge
illegitimately imposes his or her preference on a case (this is true for
both liberal and conservative activism).

In short you have no evidence that it happened.
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 10:26:17 AM

thomas p. wrote:

Please cite the passage(s) from the decision where the court points out
the "purpose" as you describe it.

No, that is supposition on my part, and I've said as much elsewhere in
this thread. The inconsistency of his application of the vagueness
principle does open up his motivation into question, IMO. This misuse of
an established principle is the most common means be which a judge
illegitimately imposes his or her preference on a case (this is true for
both liberal and conservative activism).

In short you have no evidence that it happened.

Correct.
Main Entry: sup·po·si·tion
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English supposicioun, from Anglo-French supposicion, from
Late Latin supposition-, suppositio, from Latin, act of placing beneath,
from supponere
Date:
15th century
1 : something that is supposed : hypothesis
2 : the act of supposing
.

User: "thomas p."
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	14 Jan 2008 10:31:16 AM

"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:87SdnfGvWuo0phfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com...

thomas p. wrote:

The court was quite properly pointing out that the purpose was religious
and therefore unconstitutional. The one institution that can determine
if the court ruled improperly would be a higher court not you.

Please cite the passage(s) from the decision where the court points out
the "purpose" as you describe it.

In short you have no evidence that it happened.

Correct.

Main Entry: sup·po·si·tion
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English supposicioun, from Anglo-French supposicion, from Late
Latin supposition-, suppositio, from Latin, act of placing beneath, from
supponere
Date:
15th century

1 : something that is supposed : hypothesis

2 : the act of supposing

Thank you. Your sarcasm does not change anything. You had no reason for
your supposition.
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	14 Jan 2008 05:15:44 PM

thomas p. wrote:

Thank you. Your sarcasm does not change anything. You had no reason for
your supposition.

If the stated reason doesn't make sense then it does lead one to
question what the real reasons are.
If you're looking for unfounded supposition, read some the alleged
motivations for passing the revised law posted elsewhere in this thread.
.

User: "thomas p."
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	15 Jan 2008 02:13:46 AM

"LibertySR" <LibertySR@nospam.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:yY6dnbK15ZK9cBbanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...

thomas p. wrote:

Thank you. Your sarcasm does not change anything. You had no reason for
your supposition.

If the stated reason doesn't make sense then it does lead one to question
what the real reasons are.

It makes perfect sense.

If you're looking for unfounded supposition, read some the alleged
motivations for passing the revised law posted elsewhere in this thread.

They were not unfounded.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 06:33:36 PM

LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:

It is questioning the constitutionality, since the purpose of a law is
part of the formula that the USSC has set down for evaluating whether
it is constitutional.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm
<The Lemon test was formulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger in the
< majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Lemon dealt with Rhode
< Island and Pennsylvania programs that supplemented the salaries of
< teachers in religiously based, private schools for teaching secular
< subjects. The Court struck down both programs as violating the
< establishment clause.
<The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the
< effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the
< foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause
< rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three
< parts:
<First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second,
< its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor
< inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive
< government entanglement with religion."
The purpose is one of the three prongs of the Lemon test. If it
doesn't have a secular purpose, then it is unconstitutional. Moments
of silence also violate the 2nd prong, in that, even by suggesting
that they be used for prayer, then relative to not having a moment of
silence, their primary effect is to advance religion.
lojbab
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 10:23:37 AM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:

It is questioning the constitutionality, since the purpose of a law is
part of the formula that the USSC has set down for evaluating whether
it is constitutional.

That's not how I read it. Perhaps Free Lunch will chime in and clarify
his/her meaning.
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 11:05:19 AM

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:23:37 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnfavWuqUphfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:

It is questioning the constitutionality, since the purpose of a law is
part of the formula that the USSC has set down for evaluating whether
it is constitutional.

That's not how I read it. Perhaps Free Lunch will chime in and clarify
his/her meaning.

I meant it to be a statement of the first test in Lemon.
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 11:25:53 AM

Free Lunch wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:23:37 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnfavWuqUphfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:

It is questioning the constitutionality, since the purpose of a law is
part of the formula that the USSC has set down for evaluating whether
it is constitutional.

That's not how I read it. Perhaps Free Lunch will chime in and clarify
his/her meaning.

I meant it to be a statement of the first test in Lemon.

I took you to mean educational purpose. My mistake.
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 11:45:08 AM

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:25:53 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdneWvWuo81BfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:23:37 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnfavWuqUphfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:

It is questioning the constitutionality, since the purpose of a law is
part of the formula that the USSC has set down for evaluating whether
it is constitutional.

That's not how I read it. Perhaps Free Lunch will chime in and clarify
his/her meaning.

I meant it to be a statement of the first test in Lemon.

I took you to mean educational purpose. My mistake.

What other purpose would they have in a school?
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 11:50:00 AM

Free Lunch wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:25:53 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdneWvWuo81BfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:23:37 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnfavWuqUphfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:

It is questioning the constitutionality, since the purpose of a law is
part of the formula that the USSC has set down for evaluating whether
it is constitutional.

That's not how I read it. Perhaps Free Lunch will chime in and clarify
his/her meaning.

I meant it to be a statement of the first test in Lemon.

I took you to mean educational purpose. My mistake.

What other purpose would they have in a school?

According to the text of law, to ensure freedom of religion is supported
on school grounds. I can think of other good reasons, but they're not
relevant to the case since I'm not in the Illinois legislature.
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 11:57:31 AM

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:50:00 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdneOvWurV0hfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:25:53 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdneWvWuo81BfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:23:37 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnfavWuqUphfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:

It is questioning the constitutionality, since the purpose of a law is
part of the formula that the USSC has set down for evaluating whether
it is constitutional.

That's not how I read it. Perhaps Free Lunch will chime in and clarify
his/her meaning.

I meant it to be a statement of the first test in Lemon.

I took you to mean educational purpose. My mistake.

What other purpose would they have in a school?

How does forcing children into a moment of silence protect freedom of
religion? It doesn't. The legislature knows that.
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 08:04:46 PM

Free Lunch wrote:

What other purpose would they have in a school?

How does forcing children into a moment of silence protect freedom of
religion? It doesn't. The legislature knows that.

Well, under the legislation children are allowed to time to pray in
school with a visible display of tolerance by the state and those around
them. Without the legislation, they are not.
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 09:21:13 PM

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:04:46 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnRivWuqjXhfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

What other purpose would they have in a school?

How does forcing children into a moment of silence protect freedom of
religion? It doesn't. The legislature knows that.

Well, under the legislation children are allowed to time to pray in
school with a visible display of tolerance by the state and those around
them. Without the legislation, they are not.

Heh.
The moment of silence is not for the kids. They pray before tests if
they didn't bother to study or before gym if they're the clumsy ones who
get picked on. The most heart-felt prayers exist without any organized
waste of time.
.

User: "3921 Dead"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	12 Jan 2008 02:51:01 PM

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:36:48 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:

thomas p. wrote:

"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...

Free Lunch wrote:

There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.

Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that state
think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say that
there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within a
public school.

If the courts are not to rule on the constitutionality of laws who is?

They are, of course, allowed to rule on constitutionality.

No, they aren't ALLOWED to rule on constitutionality. They are
compelled to rule on it.
They are not

supposed to rule on the validity of the "purpose" of the law. Read
Free Lunch's post carefully: "There is no legitimate state purpose in
passing a law that includes a moment of silence for prayer." That's not
questioning the constitutionality, but states there is no proper reason
for doing such thing. That is not the court's call.

So now, on top of everything else, you think that the State of Illinois
gets to violate the First Amendment rights of the teachers as well as
the students.

Hardly. My point is that the old law was no less mandatory in its way
than the new, yet the old law was never overturned (I am not aware of any
earlier challenges to it; if you are I'd be happy to hear about them).

That's what happens when supposed Christians have a long and
well-documented trail of lies in trying to get around the First
Amendment and force their religious doctrines on others.

Overturning a law because you don't like its advocates is hardly sound
legal reasoning and is, one could argue, completely counter to our form of
government.

Do you have any evidence that it was overturned because the judges did not
like its advocates?

--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.

User: "LibertySR"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 10:22:42 AM

3921 Dead wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:36:48 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:

thomas p. wrote:

"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...

Free Lunch wrote:

There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.

Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that state
think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say that
there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within a
public school.

If the courts are not to rule on the constitutionality of laws who is?

They are, of course, allowed to rule on constitutionality.

No, they aren't ALLOWED to rule on constitutionality. They are
compelled to rule on it.

The Constitution grants them that authority and that obligation, so both
"allowed" and "compelled" work. My point about "purpose" apart from
Constitutionality still stands.
.

User: "3921 Dead"
Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law	13 Jan 2008 11:01:41 AM

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:22:42 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:

3921 Dead wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:36:48 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:

thomas p. wrote:

"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...

Free Lunch wrote:

There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.

Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that state
think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say that
there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within a
public school.

If the courts are not to rule on the constitutionality of laws who is?

They are, of course, allowed to rule on constitutionality.

No, they aren't ALLOWED to rule on constitutionality. They are
compelled to rule on it.

The Constitution grants them that authority and that obligation, so both
"allowed" and "compelled" work. My point about "purpose" apart from
Constitutionality still stands.

No law can exist in America that has any purpose that is 'apart' from
Constitutionality.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.

Page 1 of 10

Post reply

TACOMA, Wash. - A man charged with kidnapping, raping and killinga 12-year-old girl was referred to CPS By law enforcement officers in 2004,CPS Did Nothing!
5-year-old girl was sexually abused by her foster family even asher birth parents were frantically trying to regain custody.
Parents ask help for troubled 13-year-old son: In a foster home,a foster sibling sexually abused him..
SAN ANTONIO -- Foster Parents Charged In 8-year-old Girl's Death
Dying in silence: The recovering drug addicts were told in early2003 they needed to take their 22-month-old daughter back to their crampedmotel room or risk losing the girl to the child welfare system forever.
Las Vagas -- Private Investigator Hired to Find 3-Year-Old EverlyseCabrera
an old priest's clumsy attempt to come out of the closet?
PECKER CHECKER -- Oh, My Old GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGrandpa!

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ Oklahoma County prosecutors have charged a DHSemployee with a misdemeanor for allegedly not believing a 5-year-old girlwho said she had been sexually abused.
A mother said she wanted help controlling her 14-year-old fosterchild. Ten minutes later, the boy was dead.
CPS worker accused of having sex with 15-year-old girl he was supervising:the girl told police, her child was present during the incidents, most ofwhich took place in the caseworker's car.
Foster mom sentenced in death of 4-year-old
Albuquerque, NM -- 14-year-old girl testifies against foster father
Re: homosexual Priest, Yet Another, Sodomizes 6 Year Old
Riverside County social services chief resigns: ignored suggestedimprovements in Child Protective Services made the 2005 torture-killing of3-year-old virtually inevitable.

NEWER

pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER