An Athiest Student as she has claimed, brings a lawsuit with the help of the ACLU?

[Againsheila]

I just think this is bad to tell a school to remove tenets of people's faith from its halls.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That judge ruled against American religion by suppressing that particular expression.

I'm sick of judges destroying the Constitution our Christian founders set in place, and I'd like them to resign the bench voluntarily.

As Thomas Jefferson himself said: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Post the wohle letter, where it ends with him praying....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where is the right of freedom of conscience listed in the Constitution. i think I missed that one.

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, in this case Engel vs. Vitale.

If it is such an egregious crime to display anything with religious overtones in a public place then should we not be filing suit for changing the money supply and erasing any and all historical documents that may mention a deity?

After all we're violating someone's right of conscience.

No.

Over the last 68 years the Court has developed a comprehensive body of case law that anticipates virtually every church/State issue; the Court has ruled it was not the intent of the Framers to remove all religion from government, only that of a certain kind that meets certain criteria.

The Court maintains that the Lemon Test remains the appropriate measure as to the constitutionality of a given law or policy. It’s relatively straightforward determining potential violations consequently.

I have not read this entire thread so I don't know if this question has been posed, but I'd love to know how all the Christians outraged with this story would react if it was a Muslim prayer mural instead of a Christian one. The question is of course rhetorical, because I already know that if a Muslim prayer display existed in a public school in the US most all of you would be screaming at the top of your lungs for it to be removed. Religious displays in public areas is a right, as long as it's your religion, right?

Interestingly, in some cases, displays of multiple religious symbols, along with secular symbols, have passed Constitutional muster. See: Lynch v. Donnelly (1984).

 

[freedombecki]

I just think this is bad to tell a school to remove tenets of people's faith from its halls.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That judge ruled against American religion by suppressing that particular expression.

I'm sick of judges destroying the Constitution our Christian founders set in place, and I'd like them to resign the bench voluntarily.

As Thomas Jefferson himself said: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Thomas Jefferson's America did not see or forsee 3,000 Americans being murdered by religious extremists, sir.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thomas Jefferson's America did not see or forsee 3,000 Americans being murdered by religious extremists, sir.

Actually it did – hence the Constitution.

 

[Againsheila]

Thomas Jefferson's America did not see or forsee 3,000 Americans being murdered by religious extremists, sir.

Actually it did – hence the Constitution.

Um...the contitution prevented that or caused that? I don't get your point.

 

[Photonic]

I just think this is bad to tell a school to remove tenets of people's faith from its halls.

That judge ruled against American religion by suppressing that particular expression.

I'm sick of judges destroying the Constitution our Christian founders set in place, and I'd like them to resign the bench voluntarily.

As Thomas Jefferson himself said: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Thomas Jefferson's America did not see or forsee 3,000 Americans being murdered by religious extremists, sir.

So because 3000 people were murdered by fanaticism, we should also be fanatics?

 

[beagle9]

I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights. Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.

Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.

What right exactly was being infringed upon?

No one's rights were violated here

A prayer to the Christian God was displayed permanently in a building payed for by tax-payers, commissioned for creation by the administration, and then defended with tax-payer dollars.

What part about the government not respecting a particular religion don't you get? There is a reason they lost the fucking case, they were breaking the law.

You said it, PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS, and not by the government or congress with their own money in which they donot have in the game. Somehow (our money) these days, is seemingly always being allocated or spent by them in so many ways, yet it is being done without (we the taxpayers) permission and/or vote upon when they do this. They have gotten use to doing this sort of thing now, in order to rob us of our freedom to express ourselves in a peaceful and productive way, that in which we in a majority do want and always did want to do in this nation as a majority (for good and not for evil) as is agreed upon by the majority..

So I just want to know where do the people of this nation get their vote and way again as a majority should get when they agree upon as a majority, and why won't they give us that vote, instead of us having to live under a dicatorship, that takes our money, and then tells us what they will or won't do with it, in which then goes against our will and/or our permission when they do this?

This case is alot more than what meets the eye people, as it is just one more case study by the government, in which illustates to them, that they can get their way in breaking us down a little bit more, and a little bit more each time. This is exactly what the government thinks it can do against we the people in this nation now always, and they are doing this all by way of a purposeful mis-interpretation of law and/or etc. when their doing it. Otherwise, when we see a situation that has just "one" (in this test case a little girl, thus being against thousands of adults or maybe even millions who see it otherwise and/or another way), yet the government wins anyway(?), then we see exactly how the government has moved this nation into the situations that we are experiencing right now today and in so many other areas as well. Think about it people, while keeping one eye on the bigger picture here, and the other one on your pocketbook.

 

[Photonic]

What right exactly was being infringed upon?

No one's rights were violated here

A prayer to the Christian God was displayed permanently in a building payed for by tax-payers, commissioned for creation by the administration, and then defended with tax-payer dollars.

What part about the government not respecting a particular religion don't you get? There is a reason they lost the fucking case, they were breaking the law.

You said it, PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS, and not by the government or congress with their own money in which they donot have in the game. Somehow (our money) these days, is seemingly always being allocated or spent by them in so many ways, yet it is being done without (we the taxpayers) permission and/or vote upon when they do this. They have gotten use to doing this sort of thing now, in order to rob us of our freedom to express ourselves in a peaceful and productive way, that in which we in a majority do want and always did want to do in this nation as a majority (for good and not for evil) as is agreed upon by the majority..

So I just want to know where do the people of this nation get their vote and way again as a majority should get when they agree upon as a majority, and why won't they give us that vote, instead of us having to live under a dicatorship, that takes our money, and then tells us what they will or won't do with it, in which then goes against our will and/or our permission when they do this?

This case is alot more than what meets the eye people, as it is just one more case study by the government, in which illustates to them, that they can get their way in breaking us down a little bit more, and a little bit more each time. This is exactly what the government thinks it can do against we the people in this nation now always, and they are doing this all by way of a purposeful mis-interpretation of law and/or etc. when their doing it. Otherwise, when we see a situation that has just "one" (in this test case a little girl, thus being against thousands of adults or maybe even millions who see it otherwise and/or another way), yet the government wins anyway(?), then we see exactly how the government has moved this nation into the situations that we are experiencing right now today and in so many other areas as well. Think about it people, while keeping one eye on the bigger picture here, and the other one on your pocketbook.

Oh, so as long as it's payed for privately, it should be allowed to be in school?

Shit. Let's just bring in any church that has the money to decorate the school, I'll contact the local Mosque, tell them it isn't breaking the law if they pay for it privately.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You said it, PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS, and not by the government or congress…

Where do you think government or Congress gets its money? From taxpayers.

It makes no difference whether or not it was paid for by private money, once placed in the school, the violation occurred.

They have gotten use to doing this sort of thing now, in order to rob us of our freedom to express ourselves in a peaceful and productive way, that in which we in a majority do want and always did want to do in this nation as a majority (for good and not for evil) as is agreed upon by the majority..

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, everyone is subject to the rule of law: the president, the Congress, the judiciary, all state and local governments, and all the people, including the majority. And the majority doesn’t trump the Constitution or its case law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, in this case Engel vs. Vitale.

ROFL

The Authoritarian thug speaks, you negate the rule of law for the rule of man, which is your desire as a leftist. You seek dictatorship.

What you claim is false, of course. The constitution is the final arbiter of case law, not vice versa.

Were the idiocy you claim true, then Georgia's Sodomy laws would have prevailed over the constitution.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for the mischaracterizations you offer.

No.

Over the last 68 years the Court has developed a comprehensive body of case law that anticipates virtually every church/State issue; the Court has ruled it was not the intent of the Framers to remove all religion from government, only that of a certain kind that meets certain criteria.

The court is whimsical, it changes with the prevailing majority on the bench. The left is dedicated to eradicating liberty. When the court is dominated by the left, then liberty is under assault. The 1st amendment rights to the freedom of expression are generally the first to be revoked, as is the case here.

The Court maintains that the Lemon Test remains the appropriate measure as to the constitutionality of a given law or policy. It’s relatively straightforward determining potential violations consequently.

The courts are capricious. A leftist judge will rule against liberty if the chance of reversal is low, sometimes even if reversal is imminent.

This judge felt as you do, that he was not to apply the law, but that he was the law.

Interestingly, in some cases, displays of multiple religious symbols, along with secular symbols, have passed Constitutional muster. See: Lynch v. Donnelly (1984).

The courts are capricious. If a case is before a judge who support liberty and the constitution, the court will find in favor of the freedom of expression.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually it did – hence the Constitution.

You claimed the constitution is irrelevant, only case law has merit. A dictatorship where law means only what a judge wants it to mean at any given moment.

 

[InDoctriNation]

Actually it did – hence the Constitution.

You claimed the constitution is irrelevant, only case law has merit. A dictatorship where law means only what a judge wants it to mean at any given moment.

You have created a strawman out of his argument, as he never claimed the constitution is irrelevant. There is no need to respond to logically fallacious arguments, as they are self-defeating.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have created a strawman out of his argument, as he never claimed the constitution is irrelevant. There is no need to respond to logically fallacious arguments, as they are self-defeating.

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, in this case Engel vs. Vitale.

Try again, sparky.

 

[InDoctriNation]

You have created a strawman out of his argument, as he never claimed the constitution is irrelevant. There is no need to respond to logically fallacious arguments, as they are self-defeating.

Remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, in this case Engel vs. Vitale.

Try again, sparky.

Still not seeing where he said, or even implied, that the Constitution is irrelevant. Strawman.

 

[Againsheila]

Okay, now I'm confused...

so many people agree with the court that this bratty girl has the right to rip down a piece of art because it has religious conotations, claiming it violates the constitution and the separation of church and state.

Now here Courts Say Christian Church Not Allowed to Practice Christianity

we have a case where the court is forceing a church to hold a ceremoney for two lesbians after they refused do to it being against their religion.

So if there is a seperation of church and state (which was never the intent of the constition) why is the court sticking it's nose in the business of this chuch. And for the record, the establishment clause was suppose to keep the government OUT of religion, not the other way around.

Are both courts right?

If so, we have a big problem. If not, then it's clear that the first case could also be wrong and that courts aren't always right as some here have claimed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Still not seeing where he said, or even implied, that the Constitution is irrelevant. Strawman.

You're a leftist, ergo not very bright.

What does "only exists in context of case law" mean to you?

I'll wait while you ask the party bosses.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Okay, now I'm confused...

so many people agree with the court that this bratty girl has the right to rip down a piece of art because it has religious conotations, claiming it violates the constitution and the separation of church and state.

Now here Courts Say Christian Church Not Allowed to Practice Christianity

we have a case where the court is forceing a church to hold a ceremoney for two lesbians after they refused do to it being against their religion.

So if there is a seperation of church and state (which was never the intent of the constition) why is the court sticking it's nose in the business of this chuch. And for the record, the establishment clause was suppose to keep the government OUT of religion, not the other way around.

Are both courts right?

If so, we have a big problem. If not, then it's clear that the first case could also be wrong and that courts aren't always right as some here have claimed.

The courts are capricious.

The left seeks the rule of men. Men rule based on the whim of the moment.

The right seeks the rule of law. Law is codified and applicable to all. (which is why the left seeks to undermine the rule of law.)

When law is a matter of statute, you or I can look at a ruling and say "that's wrong, it defies codified law." But in the world of thugs like Clayton, the JUDGE is the law, whatever utterance he makes is law until a ruler with more power utters something different.

 

[InDoctriNation]

Still not seeing where he said, or even implied, that the Constitution is irrelevant. Strawman.

You're a leftist, ergo not very bright.

What does "only exists in context of case law" mean to you?

I'll wait while you ask the party bosses.

The court elucidates the meaning of the Constitution through judicial review, so the Constitution is interpreted in the context of case law. Decisions made by judges are based on an interpretation of the Constitution, so I would hardly say the Constitution is irrelevant. This is what I interpreted from CClayton's post, but obviously your reactionary mind invented a meaning for its own purposes.

If I said that people exist only in the context of God's plan, would that mean that people are irrelevant? You're not too good at nuance, are you there sparky?

 

[InDoctriNation]

Okay, now I'm confused...

So if there is a seperation of church and state (which was never the intent of the constition) why is the court sticking it's nose in the business of this chuch. And for the record, the establishment clause was suppose to keep the government OUT of religion, not the other way around.

Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Seems to me that the Establishment Clause was meant to keep religion out of government (respecting an establishment of religion), and to keep government out of religion (prohibit the free exercise thereof).

 

[Uncensored2008]

The court elucidates the meaning of the Constitution through judicial review, so the Constitution is interpreted in the context of case law. Decisions made by judges are based on an interpretation of the Constitution,

You're contradicting Clayton. I understand, you're attempting to salvage his absurdity.

so I would hardly say the Constitution is irrelevant. This is what I interpreted from CClayton's post, but obviously your reactionary mind invented a meaning for its own purposes.

I stated what was there. Clayton is of the radical left, he seeks a dictatorial system where rulers, rather than codified law, are the arbiter of the rules of society.

Cicero nailed to law of the republic on the gates of Rome so that any entering would read and know what he would be governed by.

This republic was established in a similar fashion, a constitution was established that codified the law of the land. Clearly, this is a restraint on the rule of tyrants. Since the ratification of the constitution, those who desire the rule of kings and dictators have sought to neuter the constitution, to render the codification of law null. This is particularly true of the constitution, which was written in plain language that commoners can easily understand. Obfuscation is a vital tool of tyrants, who rule by their word. A constitution that is clear and plainly written, as ours is, is a hindrance to the rule of the oligarchy.

Clayton represents the appeal to submit to rule by men, to the concept that the word of rulers is the law which is applied to their subjects. What is the law? This is not something the subjects can know, only the initiates can interpret what the law may be today, what it is today may not be the case tomorrow. The law is what the rulers say it is, nothing more or less.

These are two contradictory models - the rule of law and the rule of man.

If I said that people exist only in the context of God's plan, would that mean that people are irrelevant?

Yes, it would mean that people are mere automatons.

You're not too good at nuance, are you there sparky?

I am simply a supporter of the old republic and the constitution that is the supreme law of that republic. I have not accepted the substitution of a supreme ruler for the law.