Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

the debate with stu stems from the fact that he believes this country became great because it was secular. I have told him that it was not secular in the beginning. And he refuses to acknlowledge the overwhelming proof I have produced.

Supreme Court declarations

State constitutions which required a belief in God to hold office

Christianity taught in state supported schools.

A majority of the states at the contitutional convention suppported and endorsed state religions which is why we have th establishment clause in the constitutons.

It is not just semantics. It is an argument about the historical contribution of Christiantiy to the freedoms protected and promoted in the West by Christians.
 
LIFE IS TOO SHORT SOOOO......

T A K E M Y H A N D...

T053212A.jpg



OH OH, come take my hand
WE'RE RIDING OUT TO
TO CASE THE PROMISED LAND!!
Oh oh oh oh, Thunder Road
Oh, Thunder Road, oh, Thunder Road
Lying out there like a killer in the sun
Hey, I know it's late, we can make it if we run
Oh oh oh oh, Thunder Road
Sit tight, take hold, Thunder Road

Well, I got this guitar and I learned how to make it talk
And my car's out back if you're ready to take that long walk
From your front porch to my front seat
The door's open but the ride ain't free
And I know you're lonely for words that I ain't spoken
But tonight we'll be free, all the promises'll be broken

There were ghosts in the eyes of all the boys you sent away
They haunt this dusty beach road in the skeleton frames of burned-out Chevrolets
They scream your name at night in the street
Your graduation gown lies in rags at their feet
And in the lonely cool before dawn
You hear their engines rolling on
But when you get to the porch, they're gone on the wind
So Mary, climb in
IT'S A TOWN FULL OF LOSERS,
I'M PULLIN OUTA HERE TO WIN !!!!

WE CAN STILL MAKE IT IF WE RUN!!!

OH OH OH! TAKE MY HAND...

TONIGHT WE'LL BE FREE

ac2.gif
 
Quote from whitster:

and if one is not willing to defend the RIGHT of the people that we perceive as hateful, to spew their rhetoric, then we do not deserve the right to spew our own ideas.
More...
Bollocks. That's the rhetoric for freedom of tyranny , not freedom of speech. You don't even know what it means. Go back and try to understand what the 1st Amendment is really all about..

You have made it clear that you would defend the right for a student to speak out - to spew hateful rhetoric against other students - and for no matter what the consequences it leads to. Disruption of school or lessons , just as long as it wasn't actually in a class or with a bullhorn, you would defend any speech whatsoever. Apart from when it don't sound right then suddenly you pop the the word incitement into things.

The school Principal in your world would have no control over any of that. Any vile and hateful rhetoric against any student or group of students is acceptable to you, even were it to disrupt good rule and government of the school.

Handed a most valuable and useful tool, from the many out of the Founders strong and soundly crafted tool chest, you proceed to wave it around in the air , knocking down everything around , then bludgeon to death with it any rights others may have, and as if not content with that, you abuse the right for proper order and control. So the misuse you put free speech to is now capable of causing more harm than good in a place of learning..
Quote from whitster:

that's the fundamental tenet of our constitutional rights. that's why the 1st amendment is FIRST
.
More...
In this thread's topic, the student is claiming her religious right to religious expression, not her right to to spew her rhetoric, It might have been a little more enlightening to consider why she might be using religion to try and mask something for which she could be rightly censored for under school rules.

You are plain wrong about case law. You seem to have been unable to understand that administrators do have censorship controls against students speech. The Supreme Court does decide to what extent the protection of freedom of speech is afforded. Go study.

Instead of waving your free speech dick about the place, it might have been more informative if you'd responded a little more considerately instead of just spewing your freedom of speech constitutional rights cover- all, sophistry bullshit knee jerk rhetoric. I presume only because the word religion and christian .are involved in the issue.

It astonishes me to notice the rights that are deemed changeable and the rights considered disposable in order to defend and protect at any cost a (christian) religious viewpoint.
 
Quote from jem:

So Stu you are saying 3 supreme court justices misunderstood the central support and the ultimate conclusion of the Trinity case and that you can read Supreme Court cases more authoritively than the Supreme court.

I wont even get into the multiple other reasons you are wrong.
More...
No jem. This is what I clearly stated to you

1. The sentence you cherry picked your 5 words from does not say what you want it to when read in it's entirety. Neither does the whole paragraph for that matter..In the same way the sentence I chose words from in my obviously unsuccessful attempt to point that out , does not say what the sentence actually indicates

2. As you have shown in another thread. and are doing so here, you are unable to discuss the above objectively, due apparently to your over excited emotional christian leanings .which imo cloud your vision and your better judgment in such matters.

3. The subject you have raised is off topic.
 
STU you are allowed to cherry pick when the words quoted are the central support for the ultimate conclusion. Note these are not my words they are the words of 3 US Supreme Court Justices.

STU I repond with solid on fact points and experts - you create nebulous responses to hypothetical situations. All this to protect your cherished by off base world view?

Honest secularists must be embarrassed by your display of willful ignorance.

This is my last post on this topic for now. You again are wasting everyone's time with insincere agrument.
 
Quote from jem:

STU you are allowed to cherry pick when the words quoted are the central support for the ultimate conclusion. Note these are not my words they are the words of 3 US Supreme Court Justices.
More...
The words quoted are not the central support for the ultimate conclusion. So your self- constructed rule fell in on itself.
Quote from jem:

STU I repond with solid on fact points and experts - you create nebulous responses to hypothetical situations. All this to protect your cherished by off base world view?
More...
No jem you do no such thing. You generally spew up rhetoric from catholic websites which have already distorted the actual position, then you call that "expert".
Quote from jem:

Honest secularists must be embarrassed by your display of willful ignorance.
More...
What the fk are you talking about now? I have come to learn that you consider anyone who does'nt agree with you to be willfully ignorant.It's a signal to me when discussing - (lol discuss my ass - you discuss I don't think so ) - stuff with youI am being more than likely correct in what I am saying
Quote from jem:

This is my last post on this topic for now. You again are wasting everyone's time with insincere agrument.
More...
It's off topic. 3 times I mentioned that to you has it just sunk in.?

The Trinity case opinion you keep quoting , has long since known not to have set any Law or precedent , but is nevertheless regurgitated from time to time by die hard evangelicals who try to bend a religious message around it. The whole case is about the immigration of services, and not to do with religion anyway. Just because one of the representative Justices for the Court made an impassioned opinion does not make a Supreme Court ruling. And especially because the . opinion actually shows others and not the Court demonstrating the Justice's understanding that it is they who profess the idea that this is a christian nation.

America became great despite christinanity, not because of it.

Your last post on this? bye bye for now then jem.
 
That you are willing to flash your ignorance for the world to see is astonishing.


As a Supreme Court case, Trinity by definition set precendent and was (or probably is technically still is) the law of the land

. That 3 U.S. Supreme Court judges referenced it in 1989 and as a poster child of judicial activism tells you that it not only set law, it is actually technically still the law of the land until it is overuled by another Supreme Court case. And, it has not been overuled but the Supreme Court.



Would I argue that it is still controlling law - no.

But you are ignorant to say it never set precedent or law.
 
In PUBLIC CITIZEN v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), JUSTICE KENNEDY, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring in the judgment, wrote:

The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its lengthy review of the "mass of organic utterances" establishing that "this is a Christian nation,"


and which were taken to prove that it could not "be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation." Id., at 471.

NOW TO BE CLEAR THE COURT JUST TOLD YOU THE CENTRAL SUPPORT AND THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION.
 
stu, i am relying on the constitution - you don';t

incitement to riot is not constitutionally protected

opinion is.

as i cited, the scotus has made clear, as has common sense, that the fundamental tenet of the 1st amendment in regards to speech is that govt. and the constitution can take no stance as to opinion.

again, i rely on constitutional law, and the constitution.

you rely on rhetoric

if angela davis (i witnessed this personally) spews that she hates capitalists, that they are scum deserving of death, etc. that is protected 1st amendment speech. is that hate speech? sure. so what? hate speech is constitutionally protected speech - IN THE USA (not most other countries)

if she had exhorted her (misguided) followers "let's go storm the faculty building and smash some windows!" - that would be incitement to riot

the former expresses an opnion

the latter is an incitement to specific illegal act.

check the case law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top