The Last Bastion of Allowable Prejudice.

[ABikerSailor]

And the school certainly has the right to deny Christians the privilege of putting biblical excerpts on fund-raising bricks. It's idiotic, but they're within their rights.

the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. To claim it does just advertises the ignorance of our educators.

Lemmie ask you a question Always A Babbling *****.........what would be your reaction if a Quaranic verse was put on some of those bricks? What if it talked of jihad? Would you allow that brick to sit next to one with a Christian verse?

 

[AllieBaba]

How silly. Christianity has complete freedom in the US to express itself fully. The problem with some Christians, is they are not content to stay in their churches, but they want to proselytize EVERYWHERE.

A Bible verse has no business being on a publically funded government institution. It belongs on Church property. This is a separation of church and state issue, not an issue of free speech.

Only a Christian would complain about this.

Why is it unreasonable for us to not want to stay in our churches when we have the right, as well as the privilege and duty to live the Gospel in all areas of our lives and share it with all people?

Which Church is established if a Bible verse is mentioned publically?

Interestingly enough, I've never had a Buddhist come up to me and ask "have you heard the good news about Buddha"?

I've never had a Muslim come up to me and ask if I wanted to follow Mohammed.

No Jewish person has ever come up to me asking if I wish to go to their temple.

The only people that seem intent on doing that are Christians. Interestingly enough, when they ask me if I knew Yeshua (Jesus to you Christians), I tell them yeah, He's my big brother. Then they ask me if I know God, and then I tell them yeah, I do, because I study Judaic theology.

Most of 'em leave me alone after that.

That's because they haven't heard you expound about Noah and how he slept with his daughters yet.


If they'd ever heard your ignorant ramblings, they'd be all over you, I'm sure. Or maybe it's just that in the biker bar where you tend bar, you don't come across the cream of the crop when it comes to Christian witnesses...

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And the school certainly has the right to deny Christians the privilege of putting biblical excerpts on fund-raising bricks. It's idiotic, but they're within their rights.

the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. To claim it does just advertises the ignorance of our educators.

If it is a publicly funded school no religious messages, of any religion, should ever be allowed.

Nonsense. Neither the Constitution, statute nor case law supports that assertion. There's no grounds in the law to prohibit such a thing in this particular case under these circumstances. The school simply chose not to do the project because it knew damn well it would have to include them.

Besides, you don't believe what you're saying anyway. No. You would simply block the expression of anything traditionally thought of as being religious, an arbitrary and subjective exercise in tyranny.

 

[AllieBaba]

And the school certainly has the right to deny Christians the privilege of putting biblical excerpts on fund-raising bricks. It's idiotic, but they're within their rights.

the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. To claim it does just advertises the ignorance of our educators.

If it is a publicly funded school no religious messages, of any religion, should ever be allowed.

Except THAT'S NOT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Separation of church and state exists ONLY to prevent the government from establishing a religion. Our first schools taught FROM THE BIBLE.

The whole movement to eradicate all references to religion from any state sponsored site/spot/employee is a bastard movement that has nothing to do with our constitution or the intentions of our founding fathers.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And the school certainly has the right to deny Christians the privilege of putting biblical excerpts on fund-raising bricks. It's idiotic, but they're within their rights.

the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. To claim it does just advertises the ignorance of our educators.

If it is a publicly funded school no religious messages, of any religion, should ever be allowed.

Except THAT'S NOT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Separation of church and state exists ONLY to prevent the government from establishing a religion. Our first schools taught FROM THE BIBLE.

The whole movement to eradicate all references to religion from any state sponsored site/spot/employee is a bastard movement that has nothing to do with our constitution or the intentions of our founding fathers.

Hey, Always A Babbling *****.......you gonna answer my question?

If a Muslim had put a Quaranic verse on a brick, talking about jihad, would you believe that is free speech as well, and, would you be comfortable with it sitting next to a Christian verse?

 

[peach174]

I thought racism towards whites was "The Last Bastion of Allowable Prejudice", which one is it?

It's whites who are Christian.

So you don't think that the Majority of Blacks and Hispanics are Christian? Yes they are.
Just because the left are trying to advocate it does not make it true.

 

[AllieBaba]

Of course I would. I don't care what people put on school bricks because it's not a method of establishing a government religion. If the phrase itself was inappropriate to the age..that would be something else again.

 

[ConHog]

If it is a publicly funded school no religious messages, of any religion, should ever be allowed.

Except THAT'S NOT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Separation of church and state exists ONLY to prevent the government from establishing a religion. Our first schools taught FROM THE BIBLE.

The whole movement to eradicate all references to religion from any state sponsored site/spot/employee is a bastard movement that has nothing to do with our constitution or the intentions of our founding fathers.

Hey, Always A Babbling *****.......you gonna answer my question?

If a Muslim had put a Quaranic verse on a brick, talking about jihad, would you believe that is free speech as well, and, would you be comfortable with it sitting next to a Christian verse?

I'll answer. If a Muslim had wanted to include a peaceful quote from the Qur'an, no problem with me, if he wanted to include a quote about Jihad. Big problem for me. Your challenge is to find a peaceful quote from the Qur'an,


But that's neither here nor there. The original intent of the first amendment has totally been blown out of proportion by those who are for some strange reason scared of Christianity and want to silence Christians at every front.

Very amusing that there is a lesbian in this thread who wants to teach MY kids that being gay is natural arguing that Christians should keep Christianity in church. That person is beyond stupid.

 

[manifold]

And the school certainly has the right to deny Christians the privilege of putting biblical excerpts on fund-raising bricks. It's idiotic, but they're within their rights.

the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. To claim it does just advertises the ignorance of our educators.

If it is a publicly funded school no religious messages, of any religion, should ever be allowed.

1. The bricks were funded by private donation.

2. The messages on them do not reflect the views or opinions of the school or the government.

3. I'm a staunch believer in separation, and even I recognize that allowing the biblical verses in this case would in no way violate the establishment clause.

 

[Sunni Man]

I'll answer. If a Muslim had wanted to include a peaceful quote from the Qur'an, no problem with me, if he wanted to include a quote about Jihad. Big problem for me. Your challenge is to find a peaceful quote from the Qur'an,.

Obviously you have never opened up a Quran and read it.

There are hundreds of verses about peace, love and being kind to your fellow man.

 

[Trajan]

TITLE: Piss Christ
ARTIST: Andres Serrano




its just amazing to me, that with all of the Misogyny , lack of tolerance, violence and the rest that is prevalent in other religions as Serrano chose this as his piece and was championed as a 'disturbing but artistic statement on how belief and spirituality has been debased'.

No one has stepped forward using some such alike Icon, to create same artistic statement speaking to Islams 'disturbing but artistic statement on how belief and spirituality has been debased'. And I think we know why.

 

[ConHog]

TITLE: Piss Christ
ARTIST: Andres Serrano




its just amazing to me, that with all of the Misogyny , lack of tolerance, violence and the rest that is prevalent in other religions as Serrano chose this as his piece and was championed as a 'disturbing but artistic statement on how belief and spirituality has been debased'.

No one has stepped forward using some such alike Icon, to create same artistic statement speaking to Islams 'disturbing but artistic statement on how belief and spirituality has been debased'. And I think we know why.

Oh yes we do know why. LOL

 

[Salt Jones]

I thought racism towards whites was "The Last Bastion of Allowable Prejudice", which one is it?

It's whites who are Christian.

Not whites who are Jewish or Muslim? Just white Christians?

 

[Salt Jones]

I thought racism towards whites was "The Last Bastion of Allowable Prejudice", which one is it?

It's whites who are Christian.

So you don't think that the Majority of Blacks and Hispanics are Christian? Yes they are.
Just because the left are trying to advocate it does not make it true.

Then why do they vote for the Democrats and their platforms on religion? Are blacks and hispanics poor Christians or poor at politics?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Bible verse on a brick when a school opens up a programme for anyone to express a personal message.

To determine an Establishment Clause violation, the measure in question is subjected to the Lemon Test, outlined in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971):

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

The Lemon Test

What is the secular purpose of the program? Does the program have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion? Lastly, is there an ‘excessive government entanglement" with religion?

If any of the three ‘prongs’ of the Lemon Test are violated, then the measure is un-Constitutional.

In this case the primary effect of the bricks is to advance religion; there is no problem with the bricks expressing personal messages per se, provided they’re not of a religious nature. Consequently the second prong of the test is violated and the program is potentially un-Constitutional. The third prong is also likely violated, as the school agreed to have the bricks made a permanent part of the school grounds.

In McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), concerning the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display in a public venue, the Court held:

In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice David Souter, the majority held that the displays violated the establishment clause because their purpose had been to advance religion. In the case of each of the displays, the Court held, an observer would have concluded that the government was endorsing religion.

McCreary County v. ACLU | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The same would be true with an observer encountering the bricks on the pathway with religious quotations.

A move which has now angered religious groups.

‘Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses just like everyone else,’ Mr Cortman told Fox News.

They are allowed, provided it’s not done in conjunction with the state and such expression does not manifest an excessive government entanglement.

There is no violation of free speech as Christians are allowed to convey their message in any appropriate forum they wish; they simply may not use the venue of a school as it is a state entity and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the conjoining of church and State. It is not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the same Amendment as there is no prohibition of Christian practices on school property – there is no tenet in the Christian faith requiring its followers to document their piety in any written form.

Lawyer Peter Lepiscopo, who served as a local counsel in the case, told Fox News the case had been settled.

If the case is settled then what’s the point of this thread?

This is therefore yet another non-issue.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's been my observation that liberal leftist hate Christians and Christianity.

They see them as an obstacle to their socialist progressive agenda .

 

[ConHog]

It's been my observation that liberal leftist hate Christians and Christianity.

They see them as an obstacle to their socialist progressive agenda .

And yet somehow they have for some reason aligned themselves with Islam which would kill them all without a moment's hesitation. LOL

 

[Salt Jones]

It's been my observation that liberal leftist hate Christians and Christianity.

They see them as an obstacle to their socialist progressive agenda .

What is more socialist than any form of organized religion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

‘There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Bible verse on a brick when a school opens up a programme for anyone to express a personal message.

To determine an Establishment Clause violation, the measure in question is subjected to the Lemon Test, outlined in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971):

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

The Lemon Test

What is the secular purpose of the program? Does the program have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion? Lastly, is there an ‘excessive government entanglement" with religion?

If any of the three ‘prongs’ of the Lemon Test are violated, then the measure is un-Constitutional.

In this case the primary effect of the bricks is to advance religion; there is no problem with the bricks expressing personal messages per se, provided they’re not of a religious nature. Consequently the second prong of the test is violated and the program is potentially un-Constitutional. The third prong is also likely violated, as the school agreed to have the bricks made a permanent part of the school grounds.

In McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), concerning the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display in a public venue, the Court held:


The same would be true with an observer encountering the bricks on the pathway with religious quotations.

A move which has now angered religious groups.

‘Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses just like everyone else,’ Mr Cortman told Fox News.

They are allowed, provided it’s not done in conjunction with the state and such expression does not manifest an excessive government entanglement.

There is no violation of free speech as Christians are allowed to convey their message in any appropriate forum they wish; they simply may not use the venue of a school as it is a state entity and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the conjoining of church and State. It is not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the same Amendment as there is no prohibition of Christian practices on school property – there is no tenet in the Christian faith requiring its followers to document their piety in any written form.

Lawyer Peter Lepiscopo, who served as a local counsel in the case, told Fox News the case had been settled.

If the case is settled then what’s the point of this thread?

This is therefore yet another non-issue.

It is a non-issue if one is a secularist believer in a 'living Constitution.'
I believe in the Constitution as written and the original view of those who founded this great nation.

Your jaundiced view "seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely
there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal
government, and there is even less justification for a federal
legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws
enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."

The words above, those within the quotation marks, were written by
Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Perhaps you have heard of him.

I place great stock in those words.

Those who subscribe to your view take the message of Roscoe Pound as
their incitement.

A terrible, and profound, mistake.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's been my observation that liberal leftist hate Christians and Christianity.

They see them as an obstacle to their socialist progressive agenda .

What is more socialist than any form of organized religion?

Do you not understand that a) you are not forced to join any organized religion. and

b) criticism of socialism only occurs when it is combined with government.


Think before you write.