| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2006 05:05:19 AM |
| Object: |
Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
When it comes to the daily News/blog/commentary items I post I
don't verify or vouch for them. Some may reflect my views on the topic of
Sep Church & State, just as many do not.
In reading over many of these I find that many, if not most, on
both sides, often times contain errors of legal and or historical fact.
Reader beware, do your own homework. I let whoever wrote them make valid
points or make a fool of themselves. I gather and post them to let people
see what is out there on both sides of the issue.
I post them to inform without commentary and to let others see the
valid and the off the wall that appear from various sources.
I include the source and a URL so that anyone can get to the
original source and if they feel inclined to do so, challenge anything in
the article directly with the author.
**********************************************************************************
Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state
http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20060316/Opinion/103160037
Lahontan Valley News - Fallon,NV,USA
[excerpts
The case of the widow of a National Guard airman who wants to honor her
late husband by placing a Wiccan symbol on the memorial wall at the
Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Fernley is a poignant example
of the folly of mixing church and state.
Under the current federal policy, Roberta Stewart is not allowed to place
the pagan symbol on the wall because the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs does not currently list the five-pointed star as an "emblem of
belief." As it now stands, only approved graphics, including the Christian
cross and Buddhist wheel of righteousness, are allowed on the wall.
[snip]
.... Though the US Constitution contains several passages providing for
separation of church and state, signs and symbols from American's Christian
tradition show ...
[end of esxcerpts]
***************************************************************
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: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
17 Mar 2006 01:14:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
When it comes to the daily News/blog/commentary items I post I
don't verify or vouch for them. Some may reflect my views on the topic of
Sep Church & State, just as many do not.
In reading over many of these I find that many, if not most, on
both sides, often times contain errors of legal and or historical fact.
Reader beware, do your own homework. I let whoever wrote them make valid
points or make a fool of themselves. I gather and post them to let people
see what is out there on both sides of the issue.
I post them to inform without commentary and to let others see the
valid and the off the wall that appear from various sources.
I include the source and a URL so that anyone can get to the
original source and if they feel inclined to do so, challenge anything in
the article directly with the author.
*************************************************************************=
*********
Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state
http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20060316/Opinion/103160037
Lahontan Valley News - Fallon,NV,USA
[excerpts
The case of the widow of a National Guard airman who wants to honor her
late husband by placing a Wiccan symbol on the memorial wall at the
Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Fernley is a poignant examp=
le
of the folly of mixing church and state.
Under the current federal policy, Roberta Stewart is not allowed to place
the pagan symbol on the wall because the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs does not currently list the five-pointed star as an "emblem of
belief." As it now stands, only approved graphics, including the Christian
cross and Buddhist wheel of righteousness, are allowed on the wall.
US Department of Veteran's Affairs is violating widow's 1st Amendment
free speech rights.
[snip]
... Though the US Constitution contains several passages providing for
separation of church and state, signs and symbols from American's Christi=
an
tradition show ...
[end of esxcerpts]
***************************************************************
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 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. 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)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
17 Mar 2006 01:35:58 PM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2006 11:14:44 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
US Department of Veteran's Affairs is violating widow's 1st Amendment
free speech rights.
Not in the least
The Widow can plaster that image, or any other image
all over her house, car, body, her cat or dog.
She cannot expect to plaster in on a GOVERNMENT wall
That would be a government institution lending credence
to the symbol
.
|
|
|
| User: "FlameStrike" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
17 Mar 2006 04:21:11 PM |
|
|
In article <jq3m125jbbfgasa4pdbrt72afck6e1nadc@4ax.com>, laffs@'em-all.com
says...
The Widow can plaster that image, or any other image
all over her house, car, body, her cat or dog.
She cannot expect to plaster in on a GOVERNMENT wall
That would be a government institution lending credence
to the symbol
Kind of like they're doing by allowing the Christian Cross and the Buddhist
wheel of righteousness on the wall? They allow some religious symbols, the
ones that have been approved, to be used, but not others. That does stike me
as favoring one religion over another in violation of the First Amendment.
--
FlameStrike
"My honor is my life!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
17 Mar 2006 06:53:22 PM |
|
|
FlameStrike wrote:
Kind of like they're doing by allowing the Christian Cross and the
Buddhist wheel of righteousness on the wall? They allow some religious
symbols, the ones that have been approved, to be used, but not others.
That does stike me as favoring one religion over another in violation
of the First Amendment.
Agreed. It is clear. If representation of one religion is permitted, then
all must be permitted. If the Government allows for freedom of religion
(or, yes, from religion), then it has no right to define what is a religion
and what is not. If one of the few people who feel driven to describe
themselves as Jedi were to end up in this situation, then their faith would
also need to be represented (assuming someone has invented a symbol to go
with it) in order to maintain compliance with the principles of the First
Amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FlameStrike" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
17 Mar 2006 10:20:38 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns978A9493A02Aaxrmxkertsjlpjivdf@213.123.26.234>,
midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk says...
Agreed. It is clear. If representation of one religion is permitted, then
all must be permitted. If the Government allows for freedom of religion
(or, yes, from religion), then it has no right to define what is a religion
and what is not. If one of the few people who feel driven to describe
themselves as Jedi were to end up in this situation, then their faith would
also need to be represented (assuming someone has invented a symbol to go
with it) in order to maintain compliance with the principles of the First
Amendment.
Exactly. It shouldn't matter what the government wants to recognize in terms
of religions and religious belief, they should recognize everything that
people claim is a religion. Picking and choosing violates the stance of
neutrality that the First Adendment stands for.
--
FlameStrike
"My honor is my life!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
18 Mar 2006 05:45:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:53:22 -0600, Midjis wrote
(in article <Xns978A9493A02Aaxrmxkertsjlpjivdf@213.123.26.234>):
FlameStrike wrote:
Kind of like they're doing by allowing the Christian Cross and the
Buddhist wheel of righteousness on the wall? They allow some religious
symbols, the ones that have been approved, to be used, but not others.
That does stike me as favoring one religion over another in violation
of the First Amendment.
Agreed. It is clear. If representation of one religion is permitted, then
all must be permitted. If the Government allows for freedom of religion
(or, yes, from religion), then it has no right to define what is a religion
and what is not. If one of the few people who feel driven to describe
themselves as Jedi were to end up in this situation, then their faith would
also need to be represented (assuming someone has invented a symbol to go
with it)
Crossed Light Sabres.
in order to maintain compliance with the principles of the First
Amendment.
"But First Sergeant Yoda, when will you get off my back?"
"Shut up, Boy, or I'll smack you so hard you'll feel like a ten-penny
finishing nail hit with a greasy ballpeen hammer."
"But. Top . . . "
"Butt 'top' my *****! Why, oh, why, do "they" send me nothing but undeserving,
worthless trainees who aren't fit enough to spit on whatshisface - you
knowtheoneimean."
"But, Top, how about the Force?"
"The Force??? The Force?? I've got your Force right here - you want it, boy?"
"Ouch, ouch! /That's/ the Force?"
"Well, it might just be the sublimation of my sexual arousal which will be
satisfied with a forceful weekend with the equal of me."
"Are you saying you're gonna get laid this weekend?"
"That's the first intelligent thing you've said, boy!"
"Monday morning, everyone will nod their heads and know all . . . "
Gray Shockley
---------------------------
And a tip of the hat to
Brother Dave Gardner.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
17 Mar 2006 05:13:55 PM |
|
|
Paganism and Wicca are not religions. They're occultists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JC" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
18 Mar 2006 08:02:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Paganism and Wicca are not religions. They're occultists.
That's funny.. since Xian's were considered *cult* members back.. oh..
about 1900 years ago.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Watch Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
17 Mar 2006 05:46:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Paganism and Wicca are not religions. They're occultists.
You have a definition that might help us check out your conclusion?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
17 Mar 2006 06:57:49 PM |
|
|
Paganism and Wicca are not religions. They're occultists.
Pardon? Paganism is an occultist? Wicca is an occultist? No - a pagan or
Wiccan might be called an occultist, but paganism and Wicca are systems of
belief which might INVOLVE study of the occult.
I assume you are Christian? Your lazy platitude here seems the sort of
thing that would normally be expected from the average fundamentalist. And
of course, it would take the pious puritanical type to call someone an
occultist as though it is an insult.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
18 Mar 2006 05:15:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:13:55 -0600, wrote
(in article <1142637235.862786.244400@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
Paganism and Wicca are not religions. They're occultists.
"supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena"
Yup; they sure are.
Along with every other religion which believes in "supernatural, mystical, or
magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena".
Like Southern Baptists. Throw Kali in here, too. And Lutherans. And ("God
Help Us") Nazerines. And the Thules. And Southern Presbyterians. And Roman
Catholics. And Greek Orthodox. And Cargo Cultists.
Or one could go by the definition of a "cult" as "Any religious organization
that doesn't have a softball team".
I am religious,
You are pretentious,
S/he/it/hey is/are hypocrites.
And, so it goes.
Gray Shockley
------------------------
You who build these altars now
to sacrifice these children,
you must not do it anymore.
A scheme is not a vision
and you never have been tempted
by a demon or a god.
- Leonard Cohen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
17 Mar 2006 05:40:03 PM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
On 17 Mar 2006 11:14:44 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
US Department of Veteran's Affairs is violating widow's 1st Amendment
free speech rights.
Not in the least
The Widow can plaster that image, or any other image
all over her house, car, body, her cat or dog.
She cannot expect to plaster in on a GOVERNMENT wall
Constitutional myths are not law. You are deliberately ignoring that,
since the 1st A. prohibits Congress from making laws dealing with
religion, there is no law that prohibits the Wiccan widow from putting
a religious symbol in an area appropriate for it. Note Moses in a
frieze at the Supreme Court, for example.
That would be a government institution lending credence
to the symbol
Given Jefferson attended worship services held in the hall of the House
of Representatives at the Nation's Capital building, people are quite
capable of not assuming a church-state association concerning such
things. The association is being made today based on anti-religious
expression political correctness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
17 Mar 2006 11:30:41 PM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2006 15:40:03 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Constitutional myths are not law. You are deliberately ignoring that,
since the 1st A. prohibits Congress from making laws dealing with
religion,
Jesus christ, Freddie
"Congress" is GOVERNMENT
That would be a government institution lending credence
to the symbol
Given Jefferson attended worship services
Jefferson attending services isn't a government act
that requires adherence to any law.
You haven't managed to come close to answering what
EVERSON was about and your ignorance in citing Justice
Jacksons DISSENT (the losing side) as IF it were law.
Either come up with some ratonal (not the babbling crap
you do) reason you fail to comprehend Everson and
Cantwll, or shut up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiccan demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
18 Mar 2006 12:21:09 AM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
On 17 Mar 2006 15:40:03 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Constitutional myths are not law. You are deliberately ignoring that,
since the 1st A. prohibits Congress from making laws dealing with
religion,
Jesus christ, Freddie
"Congress" is GOVERNMENT
There's your stubbornly ignorant use of the term, "the government"
again. :^(
You are foolishly continuing to ignore that the Founding Christians
recognized the federal government as a separate entity from the state
governments with respect to government power to legislate laws
concerning our 1st Amendment rights.
That would be a government institution lending credence
to the symbol
Given Jefferson attended worship services
Jefferson attending services isn't a government act
that requires adherence to any law.
Your sentence almost makes sense in the context of this discussion.
Remember, practice makes perfect.
YOU are the one who is insisting that things like religious services
held in government buildings necessarily indicate a government
endorsement of a religion. Jefferson's example shows that you're
politically motivated and don't know what you're talking about.
You haven't managed to come close to answering what
EVERSON was about and your ignorance in citing Justice
Jacksons DISSENT (the losing side) as IF it were law.
Either come up with some ratonal (not the babbling crap
you do) reason you fail to comprehend Everson and
Cantwll, or shut up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: FREEDIE demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
18 Mar 2006 09:21:18 AM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2006 22:21:09 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"Congress" is GOVERNMENT
There's your stubbornly ignorant use of the term, "the government"
again. :^(
The entire gist of the first amendment is a making sure
that GOVERNMENT cannot do certain things to
individuals.
What exactly, did you think the constitution was
thought out to do, ya moron?
The revolution occurred because GOVERNMENT was ignoring
law and making arbitrary decisions against individuals.
Our "government" was the British government. The
revolution was in reacton to GOVERNMENT excesses.
Now you're claiming that simply because the GOVERNMENT
isn't English, that it somehow becomes a different
principle to limit the GOVERNMENT
You are foolishly continuing to ignore that the Founding Christians
recognized the federal government as a separate entity from the state
governments with respect to government power to legislate laws
concerning our 1st Amendment rights.
There were no such things as "founding christians"
Some were atheists, some were Deists, some were lax
christians.
NONE considered being christian the primary reason for
changing governernment.
Jefferson attending services isn't a government act
that requires adherence to any law.
Your sentence almost makes sense in the context of this discussion.
Remember, practice makes perfect.
"Being" a particular something (or religion) does not
give or add any particular legal legitimacy
YOU are the one who is insisting that things like religious services
held in government buildings necessarily indicate a government
endorsement of a religion. Jefferson's example shows that you're
politically motivated and don't know what you're talking about.
Religious "services" are held in government buildings
undre many circumstances. Tax-funded public libraries,
school buildings, courthouses, etc are all used by
various religious rites including funerals, meetings,
etc.
EVERSON supported using tax money for transportation of
religious students
So your claim that "I" don't support using government
buildings for religion is more of your NONSENSE.
You apparently, don't understand how to read court
decisions, or what is legally relevant in them
You're chickeshit to admit you didn't have a clue about
EVERSON and CANTWELL.
The minute you finally admit that you don't, you're
entire line of ***** argument falls apart.
You haven't managed to come close to answering what
EVERSON was about and your ignorance in citing Justice
Jacksons DISSENT (the losing side) as IF it were law.
Either come up with some ratonal (not the babbling crap
you do) reason you fail to comprehend Everson and
Cantwll, or shut up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: FREEDIE demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
20 Mar 2006 02:23:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:21:18 -0600, laffs@'em-all.com wrote
(in article <5i8o12l0kdnm3b0rso0ae82u1caa3cb390@4ax.com>):
On 17 Mar 2006 22:21:09 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"Congress" is GOVERNMENT
There's your stubbornly ignorant use of the term, "the government"
again. :^(
The entire gist of the first amendment is a making sure
that GOVERNMENT cannot do certain things to
individuals.
What exactly, did you think the constitution was
thought out to do, ya moron?
The revolution occurred because GOVERNMENT was ignoring
law and making arbitrary decisions against individuals.
Our "government" was the British government. The
revolution was in reacton to GOVERNMENT excesses.
Now you're claiming that simply because the GOVERNMENT
isn't English, that it somehow becomes a different
principle to limit the GOVERNMENT
You are foolishly continuing to ignore that the Founding Christians
recognized the federal government as a separate entity from the state
governments with respect to government power to legislate laws
concerning our 1st Amendment rights.
There were no such things as "founding christians"
Some were atheists, some were Deists, some were lax
christians.
NONE considered being christian the primary reason for
changing governernment.
Jefferson attending services isn't a government act
that requires adherence to any law.
Your sentence almost makes sense in the context of this discussion.
Remember, practice makes perfect.
"Being" a particular something (or religion) does not
give or add any particular legal legitimacy
YOU are the one who is insisting that things like religious services
held in government buildings necessarily indicate a government
endorsement of a religion. Jefferson's example shows that you're
politically motivated and don't know what you're talking about.
Religious "services" are held in government buildings
undre many circumstances. Tax-funded public libraries,
school buildings, courthouses, etc are all used by
various religious rites including funerals, meetings,
etc.
EVERSON supported using tax money for transportation of
religious students
??????????????
So your claim that "I" don't support using government
buildings for religion is more of your NONSENSE.
You apparently, don't understand how to read court
decisions, or what is legally relevant in them
You're chickeshit to admit you didn't have a clue about
EVERSON and CANTWELL.
The minute you finally admit that you don't, you're
entire line of ***** argument falls apart.
You haven't managed to come close to answering what
EVERSON was about and your ignorance in citing Justice
Jacksons DISSENT (the losing side) as IF it were law.
Either come up with some ratonal (not the babbling crap
you do) reason you fail to comprehend Everson and
Cantwll, or shut up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: FREEDIE demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
20 Mar 2006 01:00:20 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote:
EVERSON supported using tax money for transportation of
religious students
??????????????
Yes it did. Have you actually read the decision?
The majority said "The Establishment Clause means this ..., but it
doesn't really apply here". The minority said "We agree that the
Establishment Clause means that, and there is no valid reason for it
not to apply". Both sides agreed on the definition of the
Establishment Clause - there was no dissent referring to that part of
the decision. The question was whether that particular definition
forbade New Jersey from providing transport for religious students,
and the court said it was OK.
Read for yourself:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1
<This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty
< under state compulsory education laws, send their children to a
< religious rather than a public school if the school meets the secular
< educational requirements which the state has power to impose. See
< Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R.
< 468. It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey's
< requirements. The State contributes no money to the schools. It does
< not support them. Its legislation, as applied, does no more than
< provide a general program to help parents get their children,
< regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from
< accredited schools.
<
<The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That
< wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the
< slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: FREEDIE demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
20 Mar 2006 02:03:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:00:20 -0600, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <mhut121ajto5eok1s7lo9r15l9lk1a0sd0@4ax.com>):
Gray Shockley <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote:
EVERSON supported using tax money for transportation of
religious students
??????????????
Yes it did. Have you actually read the decision?
The majority said "The Establishment Clause means this ..., but it
doesn't really apply here". The minority said "We agree that the
Establishment Clause means that, and there is no valid reason for it
not to apply". Both sides agreed on the definition of the
Establishment Clause - there was no dissent referring to that part of
the decision. The question was whether that particular definition
forbade New Jersey from providing transport for religious students,
and the court said it was OK.
I blew it; I confused two cases.
Thanks for the correction.
Gray Shockley
------------------
When Cthulhu is running as a reform
candidate, there is //NO// morality
in the present administration.
Read for yourself:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1
<This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty
< under state compulsory education laws, send their children to a
< religious rather than a public school if the school meets the secular
< educational requirements which the state has power to impose. See
< Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R.
< 468. It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey's
< requirements. The State contributes no money to the schools. It does
< not support them. Its legislation, as applied, does no more than
< provide a general program to help parents get their children,
< regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from
< accredited schools.
<
<The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That
< wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the
< slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FREEDIE demonstrates folly of mixing church and state |
20 Mar 2006 01:45:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:00:20 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Gray Shockley <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote:
EVERSON supported using tax money for transportation of
religious students
??????????????
Yes it did. Have you actually read the decision?
Exactly
Unless you read the case, throw out the "dicta" and
either argue for or against the case, it's rather inane
to keep using it to argue
Freddie, in his pathological state of nonsense, not
only didn't read Everson (or Cantwell), but never
understood that "delivering" an opinion and supporting
one were two different things.
He constantly cites Everson's LOSING opinion (the
dissent) as IF it were influential on law. Jackson's
dicta is not law.
The hilarious thing is that Jackson was attempting to
"read" the constitution "strictly" (assuming that the
wall doctrine IS accepted law)---something that
Freddie, etal, insist is the only way to construct
Constitutional law.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
