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

[beagle9]

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).

"Establishment Clause": Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion(i.e. otherwise it is not to place it's signature upon any legislation by contract of or by stamp there of, that which would bind them, restrain them, or hinder them (congress) in their daily works, in which is to initiate and/or act upon it's duties to uphold the constitution, in which is to be done without various religious restraints placed upon them while doing so by a contract thus entered into by signature or by stamp. These would be things by engagement of, in which would then bind, restrain, or hinder them upon doing the works of the people by said religious restraints, in which they would have agreed upon by signature and/or by stamp).

Therefore a binding to by signature or by stamp, would then recognize by contract, and would establish a religion by contract, in which it would then be tied to or bound by in recognition of, and this be it all due to it's signature in contract there of and/or by stamp there of as entered into.

They (congress) shall also make no restriction of (or) prohibition of, upon the free exercise therefore of a religion, and also the free expression or excersize therefore of it, and this as pertaining to a religion being practiced and/or religiously expressed by the people within a state or states, that do agree upon the same issues within these states, for which is then agreed upon by the citizens as to be found in a majority within each issue and within each state these issues may be brought in. Otherwsie, if states are then joined together upon such an issue, in which each state may be battling on together as pertaining to the same issue, then this is ok just as well, but the feds/congress should also decline or recuse themselves from these issues at the federal level, in order to let those states decide the outcome for themselves in each case as may be joined together on such an issue or issues.

However, religion or the expression therefore of it, is not to be forced or agreed upon by any (government mandate) from a federal level, in which there would be none, be it by signature or by stamp, that is to be found in regards to or upon "any religious issue" and/or upon the free expression therefore of it. The government cannot force or agree with a single complaintant or complaintants, where as it would somehow be forcing it's will or opinion (key words) upon that individual or individuals who are either a minority or a majority in a case or multi-ple cases as it may then be brought by that individual to the federal government against the majority who opose them as a minority within a state or states on such an issue. In summary- The government will respect and not enforce by (government mandate), any religion upon any opposed majority or minority against it's will, that which is also found within this nation just as well within these issues. It is of my opinion that the girl was not forced to observe the banner against her will, so it then fell under the majority rule in the case, as to be found within the state and/or within the community within the state by jurisdiction of, in order that the majorities rights be protected in this specific case as it should have been.

This is my opinion of the two clauses and their meanings maybe, and thus we need always to take these issues to a vote, in order to understand where the true majority sits, and where the minority also sits within these issues. It is the only way for the people on either side, to not be abused by another as is what has happened within this specific case, thus leaving congress to get on with more important issues, especially once these issues have been worked out by the people freely and justly through their votes as it should be.

We must not allow the minority to continue to mis-use the power of this government, to thwart the will of the people in a majority, thus making the government as a "dictatorship" afterwards upon the majority when used in this away.

It is of my opinion that these issues be settled within the state or states, and not to be settled or placed before congress to settle at the federal level (thus we then risk becoming a dictatorship as it will soon afterwards quickly arise), where as therefore by this action of letting the congress decide for the state or states as joined together on the issue or issues, would then allow for outside influences to enter into the case from other states by influence there of, in which would then cause confusion and mayhem to occur within the state or states, in which the case or cases like this is being heard from within, just as it has occured upon this issue being delt with now in concerning this banner.

Let the people within the state decide always, and keep the issue between the people that are directly affected by these issues in the state, and leave congress to do what they are supposed to do, and that is to run the federal government free from the constraints of these issues and problems, that which are pertaining to the state and not pertaining to the union as a whole.

 

[Photonic]

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).

"Establishment Clause": Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion(i.e. otherwise it is not to place it's signature upon any legislation by contract of or by stamp there of, that which would bind them, restrain them, or hinder them (congress) in their daily works, in which is to initiate and/or act upon it's duties to uphold the constitution, in which is to be done without various religious restraints placed upon them while doing so by a contract thus entered into by signature or by stamp. These would be things by engagement of, in which would then bind, restrain, or hinder them upon doing the works of the people by said religious restraints, in which they would have agreed upon by signature and/or by stamp).

Therefore a binding to by signature or by stamp, would then recognize by contract, and would establish a religion by contract, in which it would then be tied to or bound by in recognition of, and this be it all due to it's signature in contract there of and/or by stamp there of as entered into.

They (congress) shall also make no restriction of (or) prohibition of, upon the free exercise therefore of a religion, and also the free expression or excersize therefore of it, and this as pertaining to a religion being practiced and/or religiously expressed, in which is then agreed upon by the citizens as to be found in a majority within each issue and within each state. However, religion or the expression therefore of it, is not to be enforced by any (government mandate) in which there would be none, be it by signature or by stamp, as in regards to "any religion" and/or the free expression therefore of it. In summary- The government will respect and not enforce by (government mandate), any religion upon any opposed majority, that which is also found within this nation just as well within these issues.

This is my opinion of the two clauses and their meanings maybe, and thus we need always to take these issues to a vote, in order to understand where the true majority sits, and where the minority also sits within these issues. It is the only way for the people on either side, to not be abused by another as is what has happened within this specific case, thus leaving congress to get on with more important issues, especially once these issues have been worked out by the people freely and justly through their votes as it should be.

We must not allow the minority to continue to mis-use the power of this government, to thwart the will of the people in a majority, thus making the government as a "dictatorship" afterwards upon them when used in this away.

It is of my opinion that these issues be settled within the states, and not to be settled or placed before congress to settle at the federal level (thus we then risk becoming a dictatorship as it will soon afterwards quickly arise), where as therefore by this action of letting the congress decide for the states, it would then allow for outside influences to enter into the case from other states by influence there of, in which would then cause confusion and mayhem to occur within the state in which the case is being heard within, just as it has occured in this issue being delt with now as concerning this banner.

Let the people within the state decide always, and keep the issue between the people that are directly affected by these issues in the state, and leave congress to do what they are supposed to do, and that is to run the federal government free from the constraints of these issues and problems, that which are pertaining to the state and not pertaining to the union as a whole.

You know what the purpose of SCOTUS is in constitutional cases?

They are supposed to interpret the founding fathers original intent.

I think this pretty much makes it damn clear.


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

 

[beagle9]

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).

"Establishment Clause": Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion(i.e. otherwise it is not to place it's signature upon any legislation by contract of or by stamp there of, that which would bind them, restrain them, or hinder them (congress) in their daily works, in which is to initiate and/or act upon it's duties to uphold the constitution, in which is to be done without various religious restraints placed upon them while doing so by a contract thus entered into by signature or by stamp. These would be things by engagement of, in which would then bind, restrain, or hinder them upon doing the works of the people by said religious restraints, in which they would have agreed upon by signature and/or by stamp).

Therefore a binding to by signature or by stamp, would then recognize by contract, and would establish a religion by contract, in which it would then be tied to or bound by in recognition of, and this be it all due to it's signature in contract there of and/or by stamp there of as entered into.

They (congress) shall also make no restriction of (or) prohibition of, upon the free exercise therefore of a religion, and also the free expression or excersize therefore of it, and this as pertaining to a religion being practiced and/or religiously expressed, in which is then agreed upon by the citizens as to be found in a majority within each issue and within each state. However, religion or the expression therefore of it, is not to be enforced by any (government mandate) in which there would be none, be it by signature or by stamp, as in regards to "any religion" and/or the free expression therefore of it. In summary- The government will respect and not enforce by (government mandate), any religion upon any opposed majority, that which is also found within this nation just as well within these issues.

This is my opinion of the two clauses and their meanings maybe, and thus we need always to take these issues to a vote, in order to understand where the true majority sits, and where the minority also sits within these issues. It is the only way for the people on either side, to not be abused by another as is what has happened within this specific case, thus leaving congress to get on with more important issues, especially once these issues have been worked out by the people freely and justly through their votes as it should be.

We must not allow the minority to continue to mis-use the power of this government, to thwart the will of the people in a majority, thus making the government as a "dictatorship" afterwards upon them when used in this away.

It is of my opinion that these issues be settled within the states, and not to be settled or placed before congress to settle at the federal level (thus we then risk becoming a dictatorship as it will soon afterwards quickly arise), where as therefore by this action of letting the congress decide for the states, it would then allow for outside influences to enter into the case from other states by influence there of, in which would then cause confusion and mayhem to occur within the state in which the case is being heard within, just as it has occured in this issue being delt with now as concerning this banner.

Let the people within the state decide always, and keep the issue between the people that are directly affected by these issues in the state, and leave congress to do what they are supposed to do, and that is to run the federal government free from the constraints of these issues and problems, that which are pertaining to the state and not pertaining to the union as a whole.

You know what the purpose of SCOTUS is in constitutional cases?

They are supposed to interpret the founding fathers original intent.

I think this pretty much makes it damn clear.


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

I had to edit my words, so re-read and let me know what you think again ok.... I am just trying to see it in a way that would make sence to me out of these two clauses, in which I feel is the root of these problems and confusions in which we have in all of this now to date.

 

[Photonic]

"Establishment Clause": Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion(i.e. otherwise it is not to place it's signature upon any legislation by contract of or by stamp there of, that which would bind them, restrain them, or hinder them (congress) in their daily works, in which is to initiate and/or act upon it's duties to uphold the constitution, in which is to be done without various religious restraints placed upon them while doing so by a contract thus entered into by signature or by stamp. These would be things by engagement of, in which would then bind, restrain, or hinder them upon doing the works of the people by said religious restraints, in which they would have agreed upon by signature and/or by stamp).

Therefore a binding to by signature or by stamp, would then recognize by contract, and would establish a religion by contract, in which it would then be tied to or bound by in recognition of, and this be it all due to it's signature in contract there of and/or by stamp there of as entered into.

They (congress) shall also make no restriction of (or) prohibition of, upon the free exercise therefore of a religion, and also the free expression or excersize therefore of it, and this as pertaining to a religion being practiced and/or religiously expressed, in which is then agreed upon by the citizens as to be found in a majority within each issue and within each state. However, religion or the expression therefore of it, is not to be enforced by any (government mandate) in which there would be none, be it by signature or by stamp, as in regards to "any religion" and/or the free expression therefore of it. In summary- The government will respect and not enforce by (government mandate), any religion upon any opposed majority, that which is also found within this nation just as well within these issues.

This is my opinion of the two clauses and their meanings maybe, and thus we need always to take these issues to a vote, in order to understand where the true majority sits, and where the minority also sits within these issues. It is the only way for the people on either side, to not be abused by another as is what has happened within this specific case, thus leaving congress to get on with more important issues, especially once these issues have been worked out by the people freely and justly through their votes as it should be.

We must not allow the minority to continue to mis-use the power of this government, to thwart the will of the people in a majority, thus making the government as a "dictatorship" afterwards upon them when used in this away.

It is of my opinion that these issues be settled within the states, and not to be settled or placed before congress to settle at the federal level (thus we then risk becoming a dictatorship as it will soon afterwards quickly arise), where as therefore by this action of letting the congress decide for the states, it would then allow for outside influences to enter into the case from other states by influence there of, in which would then cause confusion and mayhem to occur within the state in which the case is being heard within, just as it has occured in this issue being delt with now as concerning this banner.

Let the people within the state decide always, and keep the issue between the people that are directly affected by these issues in the state, and leave congress to do what they are supposed to do, and that is to run the federal government free from the constraints of these issues and problems, that which are pertaining to the state and not pertaining to the union as a whole.

You know what the purpose of SCOTUS is in constitutional cases?

They are supposed to interpret the founding fathers original intent.

I think this pretty much makes it damn clear.


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

I had to edit my words, so re-read and let me know what you think again ok.... I am just trying to see it in a way that would make sence to me out of these two clauses, in which I feel is the root of these problems and confusions in which we have in all of this now to date.

In truth, there are only two ways to abide by the First amendment in such cases. You must display all religion or none.

No, I firmly believe that nothing in school should be about religion on any level, but government wise, buildings should either display reverence to every religion or reverence to none at all.

Those are the two ways to not violate the First Amendment.

I would also like to make it clear that this is a case of the minority not being suppressed by the majority, not the other way around. Which is exactly why we have the type of government we do.

 

[beagle9]

You know what the purpose of SCOTUS is in constitutional cases?

They are supposed to interpret the founding fathers original intent.

I think this pretty much makes it damn clear.


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

I had to edit my words, so re-read and let me know what you think again ok.... I am just trying to see it in a way that would make sence to me out of these two clauses, in which I feel is the root of these problems and confusions in which we have in all of this now to date.

In truth, there are only two ways to abide by the First amendment in such cases. You must display all religion or none.

No, I firmly believe that nothing in school should be about religion on any level, but government wise, buildings should either display reverence to every religion or reverence to none at all.

Those are the two ways to not violate the First Amendment.

I would also like to make it clear that this is a case of the minority not being suppressed by the majority, not the other way around. Which is exactly why we have the type of government we do.

What is the fear in just keeping the feds out of it, and instead letting the states decide these matters, for which affect these states up front, personally and affectually? These cases donot affect the feds at their levels, but they get involved for what reasons against these states and/or etc. now ? This case may be a perfect example of a case that the feds didnot ever think would come about, in which exposed their fallacy or wrongful interpretation of these two clauses to date, and for which they did thrust themselves into by their interpretation of in order to then rule upon. What it apears to me, is that the anti-religious crowd, is willing to allow the feds to become a dictatorship in this nation, and this in order to keep this anti-religious crowd happy that they can stop religious expression where ever it is found now in America, and this as they have now since learned by a mere minority they can easily do this, cept only by the power of the federal government can they do it. It is the only way they can do this by way of that power, and guess what(?), everything comes at a price, but it is a price that they are willing to pay it seems. Freedom has ended, and this case is just another example of that loss, but who cares anymore right?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All I can say is

This one is my favorite
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-SDPmzeOmo]Congresswoman Fallin invites Pastor Sharon Daugherty to lead U.S. House of Representatives in Prayer - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXVZYy2q1bM]Senate Invocation - Rev. Don Long - February 1, 2011 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYS0_f0YNAA]Senate Opening March 7, 2008 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaadFmhTwD8]Senate Opening February 7, 2008 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIMkhFIlsyE]Senate Opening February 29, 2008 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akkhiEyZFwI]Rev. Falwell Gives Opening Prayer to Congress - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhzudToslvQ]Senate Session 2011-12-16 (09:59:57-11:22:03) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is my opinion of the two clauses and their meanings maybe…

And you’re entitled to your opinion. It’s wrong, but you’re entitled nonetheless.

and thus we need always to take these issues to a vote, in order to understand where the true majority sits…

The majority doesn’t decide who will or who will not have his rights.

See my sig.

It is of my opinion that these issues be settled within the state or states, and not to be settled or placed before congress to settle at the federal level…

Wrong again. See: 14th Amendment, substantive due process, incorporation doctrine, Supremacy Clause, and Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

 

[Photonic]

I had to edit my words, so re-read and let me know what you think again ok.... I am just trying to see it in a way that would make sence to me out of these two clauses, in which I feel is the root of these problems and confusions in which we have in all of this now to date.

In truth, there are only two ways to abide by the First amendment in such cases. You must display all religion or none.

No, I firmly believe that nothing in school should be about religion on any level, but government wise, buildings should either display reverence to every religion or reverence to none at all.

Those are the two ways to not violate the First Amendment.

I would also like to make it clear that this is a case of the minority not being suppressed by the majority, not the other way around. Which is exactly why we have the type of government we do.

What is the fear in just keeping the feds out of it, and instead letting the states decide these matters, for which affect these states up front, personally and affectually? These cases donot affect the feds at their levels, but they get involved for what reasons against these states and/or etc. now ? This case may be a perfect example of a case that the feds didnot ever think would come about, in which exposed their fallacy or wrongful interpretation of these two clauses to date, and for which they did thrust themselves into by their interpretation of in order to then rule upon. What it apears to me, is that the anti-religious crowd, is willing to allow the feds to become a dictatorship in this nation, and this in order to keep this anti-religious crowd happy that they can stop religious expression where ever it is found now in America, and this as they have now since learned by a mere minority they can easily do this, cept only by the power of the federal government can they do it. It is the only way they can do this by way of that power, and guess what(?), everything comes at a price, but it is a price that they are willing to pay it seems. Freedom has ended, and this case is just another example of that loss, but who cares anymore right?

The feds got involved because this exact same issue was brought before a supreme court, thus it has constitutional presidence.

It is already beyond the state, it is part of the First Amendment. You can try to pass this off as less Freedom, but all it is is freedom of the minority not to be trampled on by the majority.

 

[beagle9]

In truth, there are only two ways to abide by the First amendment in such cases. You must display all religion or none.

No, I firmly believe that nothing in school should be about religion on any level, but government wise, buildings should either display reverence to every religion or reverence to none at all.

Those are the two ways to not violate the First Amendment.

I would also like to make it clear that this is a case of the minority not being suppressed by the majority, not the other way around. Which is exactly why we have the type of government we do.

What is the fear in just keeping the feds out of it, and instead letting the states decide these matters, for which affect these states up front, personally and affectually? These cases donot affect the feds at their levels, but they get involved for what reasons against these states and/or etc. now ? This case may be a perfect example of a case that the feds didnot ever think would come about, in which exposed their fallacy or wrongful interpretation of these two clauses to date, and for which they did thrust themselves into by their interpretation of in order to then rule upon. What it apears to me, is that the anti-religious crowd, is willing to allow the feds to become a dictatorship in this nation, and this in order to keep this anti-religious crowd happy that they can stop religious expression where ever it is found now in America, and this as they have now since learned by a mere minority they can easily do this, cept only by the power of the federal government can they do it. It is the only way they can do this by way of that power, and guess what(?), everything comes at a price, but it is a price that they are willing to pay it seems. Freedom has ended, and this case is just another example of that loss, but who cares anymore right?

The feds got involved because this exact same issue was brought before a supreme court, thus it has constitutional presidence.

It is already beyond the state, it is part of the First Amendment. You can try to pass this off as less Freedom, but all it is is freedom of the minority not to be trampled on by the majority.

This case is a very bad example for upholding the freedoms of a minority against a good majority (for which the minority numbered just one in such a case), where as it then somehow took presidence over a good majority that numbers in the thousands? It is my feelings that this is trampling big time upon the rights & freedoms of the good majority in this nation, and it is robbing them of their freedoms and rights to expression found in a good majority. It is now being found justified against the majority in a rediculous manor in such a case, but the good citizens are asleep or feel helpless against a government gone totally rogue in such cases now.

It is hard for me to believe that this was upheld by a judge like it was in such a case, thus robbing the good majority of it's rights and freedoms as a good and respected majority, who are in good standings in the nation as a good majority, where as in this specific case it was not appropriate (IMHO) for the minority to win. Their was just "one" in this case over the many who saw this otherwise upon that wall, and for which it was brought before the courts in this way by way of one, yet the "one" in such a case wins? This case clearly shows our government as a dictatorship now with an agenda, and it is getting stronger in this way by the minute in everyway and through everyday.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All I can say is

This one is my favorite
Congresswoman Fallin invites Pastor Sharon Daugherty to lead U.S. House of Representatives in Prayer - YouTube

Senate Invocation - Rev. Don Long - February 1, 2011 - YouTube

Senate Opening March 7, 2008 - YouTube

Senate Opening February 7, 2008 - YouTube

Senate Opening February 29, 2008 - YouTube

Rev. Falwell Gives Opening Prayer to Congress - YouTube

Senate Session 2011-12-16 (09:59:57-11:22:03) - YouTube

For anyone who thinks the intent of the founders was to keep the church out of the Government all they have to do is look at what we have now and look at our past

One of the founders first legislative actions was to appoint a congressional chaplian and look at those video's, I have provided.

 

[beagle9]

You know what the purpose of SCOTUS is in constitutional cases?

They are supposed to interpret the founding fathers original intent.

I think this pretty much makes it damn clear.

Not so fast there re-read again..

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

What has been placed in bold above, clearely illustrates that he was speaking of a majority (his constituents) in which for them are persuaded by him, that he will by his loyalty(fidelity) uphold those duties in which he is pleased to serve them by.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man (the people) & his (there) God, that he owes account to none (meaning the government) other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions (to be interjected into by government), I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of in regards to the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law (meaning by signature or by stamp) respecting an establishment of religion (by government at the legislature levels in contract there of against them), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State (in order to protect the freedom of religion and the free expression of it (without government interference against the will of the people, in which is to be found in a good majority). Adhering to this expression of the supreme will (a majority) of the nation, in behalf of the rights of conscience (as meaning on behalf of good, and to not withhold that good by way of government dictatorship in which would then try to supress or make a law against these things), I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights (given him by God), convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties (against him by his government/legislature).


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem (towards them).

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

What say you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You know what the purpose of SCOTUS is in constitutional cases?

They are supposed to interpret the founding fathers original intent.

Not according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Elena Kagan. (With Sotomayor drooling "whatever she said!") They, and activist justices before them, view the constitution as mailable to the political agendas they support. The three blind witches have utterly no concern for the intent of a "bunch of dead, rich white men."

I think this pretty much makes it damn clear.

No, you think that it supports a prohibition of religious expression, in doing so, you reveal your ignorance.

{Margaret Bayard Smith (1778-1844), a writer and social critic and wife of Samuel Harrison Smith, publisher of the National Intelligencer, of Jefferson's attendance at church services in the House of Representatives: "Jefferson during his whole administration was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first day sabbath, and the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him."}

Religion and the Federal Government: PART 2 (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress Exhibition)

Church services IN THE CHAMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES? On sacred, government ground?

How do you explain Jefferson allowing such blasphemy? And he had a RESERVED SEAT! On sacred ground - religion permitted on holy government land! He attended every week, without fail.

This isn't a passive mural paid for by students, these were SERMONS in the very chambers of the government you worship - Tom Jefferson himself attending and approving payment from the public treasury.

Mullah Photo, this must be very disturbing to you!

 

[Uncensored2008]

In truth, there are only two ways to abide by the First amendment in such cases. You must display all religion or none.

No, you keep your fucking nose out of it - which is what Jefferson said and meant by a wall of separation. Government does no compel anyone to worship, no Vicars rousting you to service as was the case in England. But no prohibition, either. No tearing down murals of students. Government stays out of it - you have an activist state that spends a great deal of time, money and effort persecuting the Christian religion on behalf of the established Atheist religion.

No, I firmly believe that nothing in school should be about religion on any level, but government wise, buildings should either display reverence to every religion or reverence to none at all.

You are hostile to the concept of liberty. You seek that each should paint their walls all colors or none - you will decide what others may see, lest it infringe on the dogma of your faith.

Those are the two ways to not violate the First Amendment.

I would also like to make it clear that this is a case of the minority not being suppressed by the majority, not the other way around. Which is exactly why we have the type of government we do.

You seek repression, Mullah Photo.

 

[beagle9]

In truth, there are only two ways to abide by the First amendment in such cases. You must display all religion or none.

No, you keep your fucking nose out of it - which is what Jefferson said and meant by a wall of separation. Government does no compel anyone to worship, no Vicars rousting you to service as was the case in England. But no prohibition, either. No tearing down murals of students. Government stays out of it - you have an activist state that spends a great deal of time, money and effort persecuting the Christian religion on behalf of the established Atheist religion.

No, I firmly believe that nothing in school should be about religion on any level, but government wise, buildings should either display reverence to every religion or reverence to none at all.

You are hostile to the concept of liberty. You seek that each should paint their walls all colors or none - you will decide what others may see, lest it infringe on the dogma of your faith.

Those are the two ways to not violate the First Amendment.

I would also like to make it clear that this is a case of the minority not being suppressed by the majority, not the other way around. Which is exactly why we have the type of government we do.

You seek repression, Mullah Photo.

What we have been seeing in all of this, is the replacement of Christian values and beliefs, and this for many other so called made up religious values, science, and/or beliefs in replacement of now, that on any given day in America, and within any activist judges courtroom, we keep on sliding down a hill, that is reshaping this nation fast into a dictatorship.

The only way to extract what this nation had believed in, and had practiced for over two hundrd years now, is to become a dictatorship. There are so many young people in these new generations (whom donot know the history of this nation properly), and for whom have slid down a slippery slope away from what this nation once stood for and believed in, that they are willing to live now under a government dictatorship that forcefully spoon feeds them their medicine, and all in order to get their way in which they think they are getting, when in fact they are becoming slaves in it all. These things are of the devil in which we are seeing now in America today, where as through our allowance of confusion and mayhem in all of these issues brought to bear, it has since caused a great falling away because of, and a great confusion to be found in it all, where as this nation is poised to becoming a nessesary dictatorship as the way the government see's it now, and this against those who still believe in freedom and liberty that is earned, and for which is definitely not a given or a hand out by our government. Where are you heading America????????? I respect your compassion on the issue, minus the cursing..

 

[Photonic]

What is the fear in just keeping the feds out of it, and instead letting the states decide these matters, for which affect these states up front, personally and affectually? These cases donot affect the feds at their levels, but they get involved for what reasons against these states and/or etc. now ? This case may be a perfect example of a case that the feds didnot ever think would come about, in which exposed their fallacy or wrongful interpretation of these two clauses to date, and for which they did thrust themselves into by their interpretation of in order to then rule upon. What it apears to me, is that the anti-religious crowd, is willing to allow the feds to become a dictatorship in this nation, and this in order to keep this anti-religious crowd happy that they can stop religious expression where ever it is found now in America, and this as they have now since learned by a mere minority they can easily do this, cept only by the power of the federal government can they do it. It is the only way they can do this by way of that power, and guess what(?), everything comes at a price, but it is a price that they are willing to pay it seems. Freedom has ended, and this case is just another example of that loss, but who cares anymore right?

The feds got involved because this exact same issue was brought before a supreme court, thus it has constitutional presidence.

It is already beyond the state, it is part of the First Amendment. You can try to pass this off as less Freedom, but all it is is freedom of the minority not to be trampled on by the majority.

This case is a very bad example for upholding the freedoms of a minority against a good majority (for which the minority numbered just one in such a case), where as it then somehow took presidence over a good majority that numbers in the thousands? It is my feelings that this is trampling big time upon the rights & freedoms of the good majority in this nation, and it is robbing them of their freedoms and rights to expression found in a good majority. It is now being found justified against the majority in a rediculous manor in such a case, but the good citizens are asleep or feel helpless against a government gone totally rogue in such cases now.

It is hard for me to believe that this was upheld by a judge like it was in such a case, thus robbing the good majority of it's rights and freedoms as a good and respected majority, who are in good standings in the nation as a good majority, where as in this specific case it was not appropriate (IMHO) for the minority to win. Their was just "one" in this case over the many who saw this otherwise upon that wall, and for which it was brought before the courts in this way by way of one, yet the "one" in such a case wins? This case clearly shows our government as a dictatorship now with an agenda, and it is getting stronger in this way by the minute in everyway and through everyday.

Several students have already spoken out in defense of her actions.

Most are afraid to because of the thousands of threats of rape, death, and torture she has received from those so called "Christians."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Several students have already spoken out in defense of her actions.

Most are afraid to because of the thousands of threats of rape, death, and torture she has received from those so called "Christians."

Bullshit, Mullah Photo.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The feds got involved because this exact same issue was brought before a supreme court, thus it has constitutional presidence.

It is already beyond the state, it is part of the First Amendment. You can try to pass this off as less Freedom, but all it is is freedom of the minority not to be trampled on by the majority.

This case is a very bad example for upholding the freedoms of a minority against a good majority (for which the minority numbered just one in such a case), where as it then somehow took presidence over a good majority that numbers in the thousands? It is my feelings that this is trampling big time upon the rights & freedoms of the good majority in this nation, and it is robbing them of their freedoms and rights to expression found in a good majority. It is now being found justified against the majority in a rediculous manor in such a case, but the good citizens are asleep or feel helpless against a government gone totally rogue in such cases now.

It is hard for me to believe that this was upheld by a judge like it was in such a case, thus robbing the good majority of it's rights and freedoms as a good and respected majority, who are in good standings in the nation as a good majority, where as in this specific case it was not appropriate (IMHO) for the minority to win. Their was just "one" in this case over the many who saw this otherwise upon that wall, and for which it was brought before the courts in this way by way of one, yet the "one" in such a case wins? This case clearly shows our government as a dictatorship now with an agenda, and it is getting stronger in this way by the minute in everyway and through everyday.

Several students have already spoken out in defense of her actions.

Most are afraid to because of the thousands of threats of rape, death, and torture she has received from those so called "Christians."

Trolls also jump in making those claims attacking a person because they can but you call them Christians just because they are attacking an atheist.

 

[beagle9]

The feds got involved because this exact same issue was brought before a supreme court, thus it has constitutional presidence.

It is already beyond the state, it is part of the First Amendment. You can try to pass this off as less Freedom, but all it is is freedom of the minority not to be trampled on by the majority.

This case is a very bad example for upholding the freedoms of a minority against a good majority (for which the minority numbered just one in such a case), where as it then somehow took presidence over a good majority that numbers in the thousands? It is my feelings that this is trampling big time upon the rights & freedoms of the good majority in this nation, and it is robbing them of their freedoms and rights to expression found in a good majority. It is now being found justified against the majority in a rediculous manor in such a case, but the good citizens are asleep or feel helpless against a government gone totally rogue in such cases now.

It is hard for me to believe that this was upheld by a judge like it was in such a case, thus robbing the good majority of it's rights and freedoms as a good and respected majority, who are in good standings in the nation as a good majority, where as in this specific case it was not appropriate (IMHO) for the minority to win. Their was just "one" in this case over the many who saw this otherwise upon that wall, and for which it was brought before the courts in this way by way of one, yet the "one" in such a case wins? This case clearly shows our government as a dictatorship now with an agenda, and it is getting stronger in this way by the minute in everyway and through everyday.

Several students have already spoken out in defense of her actions.


Most are afraid to, because of the thousands of threats of rape, death, and torture she has received from those so called "Christians."

Thousands and thousands and thousands of threats from those mean nasty ole Christians eh?

Here say is all this is for which you write in defense of here, wherefore it is trumped up inflamatory speech in order to try and counter valid points held within the discussion of the actual case itself. These words of yours hold no value or proof of a better outcome to arise for anyone upon or after the ruling, especially in regards to the constitution or the peoples right not to be abused or taken by these activist judges in support of a minority over a good majority, for whom these judges do operate from the bench alot more these days in regards to. These judges have gone against the "good majority" in these cases, thus taking their freedoms and rights away in the process, and leaving only a few who are given power against the thousands therefore afterwards.

Keep it within the original context of the case please (i.e. between the parties directly involved), otherwise now you are going to bring this new information as given by you, upon who supports who, in which is information that can easily be established and mounted as a defense, be it after the fact or after the case within these studies, yet by word of mouth only. However, we know it was just this girl and the ACLU involved in the situation to begin with against the school all by their lonesome, so why try and add others to the case now in order to strengthen your argument or position, when it doesn't apply within that context of the actual case ? I could now say that their are many for whom do know about the case as well now, and that they are on board with the school who was defending against the suit in which was brought, but I thought the numbers game didnot matter for many in these cases, but only that the dictatorship that has been formed out of it mattered to them the most? The court should have allowed this support to be garnered, way before the issue went to trial, but that isn't what happens in a dictatorship now is it?

 

[Photonic]

This case is a very bad example for upholding the freedoms of a minority against a good majority (for which the minority numbered just one in such a case), where as it then somehow took presidence over a good majority that numbers in the thousands? It is my feelings that this is trampling big time upon the rights & freedoms of the good majority in this nation, and it is robbing them of their freedoms and rights to expression found in a good majority. It is now being found justified against the majority in a rediculous manor in such a case, but the good citizens are asleep or feel helpless against a government gone totally rogue in such cases now.

It is hard for me to believe that this was upheld by a judge like it was in such a case, thus robbing the good majority of it's rights and freedoms as a good and respected majority, who are in good standings in the nation as a good majority, where as in this specific case it was not appropriate (IMHO) for the minority to win. Their was just "one" in this case over the many who saw this otherwise upon that wall, and for which it was brought before the courts in this way by way of one, yet the "one" in such a case wins? This case clearly shows our government as a dictatorship now with an agenda, and it is getting stronger in this way by the minute in everyway and through everyday.

Several students have already spoken out in defense of her actions.


Most are afraid to, because of the thousands of threats of rape, death, and torture she has received from those so called "Christians."

Thousands and thousands and thousands of threats from those mean nasty ole Christians eh?

Here say is all this is for which you write in defense of here, wherefore it is trumped up inflamatory speech in order to try and counter valid points held within the discussion of the actual case itself. These words of yours hold no value or proof of a better outcome to arise for anyone upon or after the ruling, especially in regards to the constitution or the peoples right not to be abused or taken by these activist judges in support of a minority over a good majority, for whom these judges do operate from the bench alot more these days in regards to. These judges have gone against the "good majority" in these cases, thus taking their freedoms and rights away in the process, and leaving only a few who are given power against the thousands therefore afterwards.

Keep it within the original context of the case please (i.e. between the parties directly involved), otherwise now you are going to bring this new information as given by you, upon who supports who, in which is information that can easily be established and mounted as a defense, be it after the fact or after the case within these studies, yet by word of mouth only. However, we know it was just this girl and the ACLU involved in the situation to begin with against the school all by their lonesome, so why try and add others to the case now in order to strengthen your argument or position, when it doesn't apply within that context of the actual case ? I could now say that their are many for whom do know about the case as well now, and that they are on board with the school who was defending against the suit in which was brought, but I thought the numbers game didnot matter for many in these cases, but only that the dictatorship that has been formed out of it mattered to them the most? The court should have allowed this support to be garnered, way before the issue went to trial, but that isn't what happens in a dictatorship now is it?

You are blind.

“Let’s all jump that girl who did the banner #fuckthatho”"I want to punch the girl in the face that made west take down the school prayer… #Honestly”

“hail Mary full of grace @jessicaahlquist is gonna get punched in the face”

“Fuck Jessica alquist I’ll drop anchor on her face”

“lol I wanna stick that bitch lol”

“We can make so many jokes about this dumb bitch, but who cares #thatbitchisgointohell and Satan is gonna rape her.”

“Brb ima go drown that atheist in holy water”

“”But for real somebody should jump this girl” lmao let’s do it!”

“shes not human shes garbage”

“wen the atheist dies, they believe they will become a tree, so we shld chop her down, turn her into paper then PRINT THE BIBLE ON HER.”

“May that little, evil athiest teenage girl and that judge BURN IN HELL!”

“definetly laying it down on this athiest tommorow anyone else?”

“yeah, well i want the immediate removal of all atheists from the school, how about that?”

“If this banner comes down, hell i hope the school burns down with it!”

“U little brainless idiot, hope u will be punished, you have not win sh..t! Stupid little brainless skunk!”

“Nothing bad better happen tomorrow #justsaying #fridaythe13th”

“How does it feel to be the most hated person in RI right now? Your a puke and a disgrace to the human race.”

“I think everyone should just fight this girl”

“I hope there’s lots of banners in hell when your rotting in there you atheist fuck #TeamJesus”

“literally that bitch is insane. and the best part is she already transferred schools because shes knows someone will jump her #ahaha”

“Hmm jess is in my bio class, she’s gonna get some shit thrown at her”

“gods going to fuck your ass with that banner you scumbag”

“I found it, what a little bitch lol I wanna snuff her”

“if I wasn’t 18 and wouldn’t go to jail I’d beat the shit out of her idk how she got away with not getting beat up yet”

“nail her to a cross”

“When I take over the world I’m going to do a holocaust to all the atheists”

And from what I've heard here, you probably aren't any different than this small sampling of twitter responses to this event.

 

[Leweman]

Why are atheists so whiny? Anywhere there is a blank spot on a wall represents an atheist, so should other religions complain. Gimme a break. She just wants some attention. A bigger person could just let it go. Obviously this person isn't comfortable with who she is.