| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Feb 2006 05:23:43 AM |
| Object: |
Mission: Overturn Everson v bd of ed |
In another forum
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=153888
a question was asked: Could we, as atheists, one day lose our rights?
A person who holds a position of authorty in that forum added the
following to his reply:
See this excellent post by Jim Alison for more and better detailed
thoughts on this.
This was the post he was referring to:
jim alison
New User
Join Date: December 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, Va
Posts: 72
Quote:
Jim, how is it that you think this might overturn Everson? . . .
end quote
The title of the thread came from the title of a article which I
included an excerpt from and a URL to.
I didn't make the claim that this particular case would overturn Everson.
What I can say though is this. A lot of the noise the other side is
making on a variety of fronts is designed to get cases into the courts
with the ultimate hope that one of those cases with do that very thing.
They see the current climate in the country as advantageous to
them ( polls show over and over again most people support church state
separation in the abstract, but many, maybe most of those same people
oppose removing "under God," support positing the Ten Commandments in
schools, on public grounds, in public/govt buildings and so on and so
forth )
They see the current make up of the courts in their favor. I recently
did a thing on the make up of the Circuit courts. Each court and
overall totals, posted it in the UseNet Newsgroups and I think on the
Yahoo group Sep of Church and State that I run.
As I recall there are 158 judges on circuit courts appointed by
Republican Presidents and something like 95 or so appointed by
Democrats. Of course that does not mean that all those folks decide
things based on politics but some do.
Baby teflon Bush has 3 more years approx and some of those judges are
getting up in years (one appointed by Kennedy is still on the bench as
well as a couple appointed by Johnson. and several by Nixon) that
ratio is going to get even more slanted to the right and ultra right
too in all probability.
The theocrats know they have Thomas. he is very much in favor of
removing the Establishment Clause from state application. There are
signs that Scalia might go along with such, the two new ones are
unknown but I don't think either of the two new ones will shift the
court back to the center or the left on the subject of church state.
Will Kennedy go back to his earlier church state thinking where he was
more of a moderate then he has been recently? Unknown, but will Bush
get more get more chances to appoint more justices in the remaining 3
years? Very possible, Stevens can't hold out forever and Ginsburg has
had some cancer problems of her own.
The theocrats are a patient lot. They have been working at this since
50s -60s. They are closer than they have ever been and they will step
up the pressure figuring that one of their cases will get lucky in the
next decade, get the right combination of issues/facts/judges/justices
at just the right time.
It may never happen, but they sure will work hard trying to make it
happen.
The one thing that blows my mind is the people, smart, intelligent
people I respect in the newsgroups, for example, that have the "it
will NEVER happen," "it CAN'T happen," "the American people WON'T let
it happen mindset.
Absolutes (like the cap words above) seldom are (absolute that is),
and that sort of mindset actually helps raise the potential of it
happening one day.
Maybe not in the next 5 years, or the next 10 years. But they have
time, they are patient and they are appointing relatively yng judges
and justices.
They spent 30 years working at getting a voucher scam, ooops (grin)
plan approved. They can work that long or longer to get this bit of
business accomplished.
Imagine the feather in the cap of whichever of the many theocratic
legal groups out there that can say they won the case that overturned
Everson. That is a prize worth pursuing for them.
Most people today do not realize that the bulk of the church state
jurisprudence that was developed, in favor of separation, in the 40s,
50s, 60s and into the 70s was developed by one major player, directly
or indirectly. That major player being Leo Pfeffer.
He advocated strict separation, he handled the oral arguments in some
of the major cases. He wrote briefs in other such cases. He helped
other lawyers write briefs and prepare to give oral arguments and he
was a writing machine, writing books, articles etc for 20 or 30 years.
Our side doesn't have a modern day Leo Pfeffer, but the other side
does. They have several of them. Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach, Jay Sekulow,
the usual cast of characters, D. James Kennedy, Dr. James Dobson to
name just a few.
They have robably two or three times the number of legal activist
groups and ordinary activists groups and writers up the ying yang.
Their cup runneth over in the area of web sites online, etc
Leo Pfeffer shows the type of impact one person or a few people can
have in the right place and time with the right people on the courts
and the right climate in the country.
I don't know that this particular case would be a case that could have
that kind of influence and or impact but with this present court I
would never say NEVER. If you looked at the voodoo way they "build
precedence" so they could claim vouchers were constitutional, I would
say don't take anything for granted
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Mission: Overturn Everson v bd of ed; discussion fails 10th A. test |
12 Feb 2006 05:43:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In another forum
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t3888
a question was asked: Could we, as atheists, one day lose our rights?
The establishment clause only helps to define how certain government
powers have been divided between federal and state governments. If
tunnel-vision atheists would stop living the Everson lie that the
establishment clause prohibits the states from legislating religion
like it prohibits Congress, they might see that it's actually the 14th
Amendment that protects their personal federal rights from the abuse of
10th protected sovereign powers of the state governments.
Justice Reed explained in a single sentence the checks and balances
relationships between the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments where our
religious freedoms are concerned:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942
The problem is that atheists evidently don't believe in the
Constitution anyway as they are not letting it work. This is evidenced
by the fact that secular Justices are now using the 14th as an excuse
to unconstitutionally force the 1st A.'s prohibitions on the federal
government onto the state governments. Again, Justice Reed noted that
Justices should be balancing the 10th protected sovereign powers of the
States with 14th protected personal federal rights.
The States have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public
schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions about the
pros and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for
example, regardless if atheists, separationists, secular judges and the
liberal media are misleading the people to think that such things are
unconstitutional.
A person who holds a position of authorty in that forum added the
following to his reply:
=20
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Mission: Overturn Everson v bd of ed |
12 Feb 2006 05:04:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 06:23:43 -0500, wrote:
In another forum
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=153888
a question was asked: Could we, as atheists, one day lose our rights?
A person who holds a position of authorty in that forum added the
following to his reply:
See this excellent post by Jim Alison for more and better detailed
thoughts on this.
This was the post he was referring to:
jim alison
New User
Join Date: December 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, Va
Posts: 72
"snip"
What self-aggrandizing!!! and Jim Alison (aka
jalison@cox.net.) are all the same poster!!! ROTFLMHO.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mission: Overturn Everson v bd of ed |
13 Feb 2006 06:49:23 AM |
|
|
(Info Junkie) wrote:
:|On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 06:23:43 -0500, wrote:
:|
:|>In another forum
:|>http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=153888
:|>a question was asked: Could we, as atheists, one day lose our rights?
:|>
:|>A person who holds a position of authorty in that forum added the
:|>following to his reply:
:|>
:|>See this excellent post by Jim Alison for more and better detailed
:|>thoughts on this.
:|>
:|>This was the post he was referring to:
:|>
:|> jim alison
:|>New User
:|>Join Date: December 2005
:|>Location: Virginia Beach, Va
:|>Posts: 72
:|
:|"snip"
:|
:|What self-aggrandizing!!! and Jim Alison (aka
:|jalison@cox.net.) are all the same poster!!! ROTFLMHO.
No ***** sherlock now run along sony you;re a bore and still a jerk
Why did you snip the actual post dippy?
In another forum
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=153888
a question was asked: Could we, as atheists, one day lose our rights?
A person who holds a position of authorty in that forum added the
following to his reply:
See this excellent post by Jim Alison for more and better detailed
thoughts on this.
This was the post he was referring to:
jim alison
New User
Join Date: December 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, Va
Posts: 72
Quote:
Jim, how is it that you think this might overturn Everson? . . .
end quote
The title of the thread came from the title of a article which I
included an excerpt from and a URL to.
I didn't make the claim that this particular case would overturn Everson.
What I can say though is this. A lot of the noise the other side is
making on a variety of fronts is designed to get cases into the courts
with the ultimate hope that one of those cases with do that very thing.
They see the current climate in the country as advantageous to
them ( polls show over and over again most people support church state
separation in the abstract, but many, maybe most of those same people
oppose removing "under God," support positing the Ten Commandments in
schools, on public grounds, in public/govt buildings and so on and so
forth )
They see the current make up of the courts in their favor. I recently
did a thing on the make up of the Circuit courts. Each court and
overall totals, posted it in the UseNet Newsgroups and I think on the
Yahoo group Sep of Church and State that I run.
As I recall there are 158 judges on circuit courts appointed by
Republican Presidents and something like 95 or so appointed by
Democrats. Of course that does not mean that all those folks decide
things based on politics but some do.
Baby teflon Bush has 3 more years approx and some of those judges are
getting up in years (one appointed by Kennedy is still on the bench as
well as a couple appointed by Johnson. and several by Nixon) that
ratio is going to get even more slanted to the right and ultra right
too in all probability.
The theocrats know they have Thomas. he is very much in favor of
removing the Establishment Clause from state application. There are
signs that Scalia might go along with such, the two new ones are
unknown but I don't think either of the two new ones will shift the
court back to the center or the left on the subject of church state.
Will Kennedy go back to his earlier church state thinking where he was
more of a moderate then he has been recently? Unknown, but will Bush
get more get more chances to appoint more justices in the remaining 3
years? Very possible, Stevens can't hold out forever and Ginsburg has
had some cancer problems of her own.
The theocrats are a patient lot. They have been working at this since
50s -60s. They are closer than they have ever been and they will step
up the pressure figuring that one of their cases will get lucky in the
next decade, get the right combination of issues/facts/judges/justices
at just the right time.
It may never happen, but they sure will work hard trying to make it
happen.
The one thing that blows my mind is the people, smart, intelligent
people I respect in the newsgroups, for example, that have the "it
will NEVER happen," "it CAN'T happen," "the American people WON'T let
it happen mindset.
Absolutes (like the cap words above) seldom are (absolute that is),
and that sort of mindset actually helps raise the potential of it
happening one day.
Maybe not in the next 5 years, or the next 10 years. But they have
time, they are patient and they are appointing relatively yng judges
and justices.
They spent 30 years working at getting a voucher scam, ooops (grin)
plan approved. They can work that long or longer to get this bit of
business accomplished.
Imagine the feather in the cap of whichever of the many theocratic
legal groups out there that can say they won the case that overturned
Everson. That is a prize worth pursuing for them.
Most people today do not realize that the bulk of the church state
jurisprudence that was developed, in favor of separation, in the 40s,
50s, 60s and into the 70s was developed by one major player, directly
or indirectly. That major player being Leo Pfeffer.
He advocated strict separation, he handled the oral arguments in some
of the major cases. He wrote briefs in other such cases. He helped
other lawyers write briefs and prepare to give oral arguments and he
was a writing machine, writing books, articles etc for 20 or 30 years.
Our side doesn't have a modern day Leo Pfeffer, but the other side
does. They have several of them. Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach, Jay Sekulow,
the usual cast of characters, D. James Kennedy, Dr. James Dobson to
name just a few.
They have robably two or three times the number of legal activist
groups and ordinary activists groups and writers up the ying yang.
Their cup runneth over in the area of web sites online, etc
Leo Pfeffer shows the type of impact one person or a few people can
have in the right place and time with the right people on the courts
and the right climate in the country.
I don't know that this particular case would be a case that could have
that kind of influence and or impact but with this present court I
would never say NEVER. If you looked at the voodoo way they "build
precedence" so they could claim vouchers were constitutional, I would
say don't take anything for granted
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Mission: Overturn Everson v bd of ed |
20 Feb 2006 06:55:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:49:23 -0500, wrote:
bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
:|On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 06:23:43 -0500, wrote:
:|
:|>In another forum
:|>http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=153888
:|>a question was asked: Could we, as atheists, one day lose our rights?
:|>
:|>A person who holds a position of authorty in that forum added the
:|>following to his reply:
:|>
:|>See this excellent post by Jim Alison for more and better detailed
:|>thoughts on this.
:|>
:|>This was the post he was referring to:
:|>
:|> jim alison
:|>New User
:|>Join Date: December 2005
:|>Location: Virginia Beach, Va
:|>Posts: 72
:|
:|"snip"
:|
:|What self-aggrandizing!!! and Jim Alison (aka
:|jalison@cox.net.) are all the same poster!!! ROTFLMHO.
No ***** sherlock now run along sony you;re a bore and still a jerk
Thanks for implying agreement that your post was self-aggrandizing.
Why did you snip the actual post dippy?
It could have been that the message itself was irrelevent when compared to your
self-aggrandizing. ROTFLMHO
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mission: Overturn Everson v bd of ed |
13 Feb 2006 03:23:32 PM |
|
|
for
bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie)
BTW I just received this very day the following:
The Old Northwest Pioneer Period 1815-1840 Volume I &II
By R, Carlyle Buley Indiana University Press . Indiana Historical Society
(1950)
Winner of Pulitzer Price 1950
Two of the Chapters are
Schools, Teachers, and Education
and
Religion
You ready to resume making a fool of yourself
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
