Posted on 06/02/2004 12:09:16 AM PDT by kattracks
The same San Francisco federal judge who just overturned a federal law banning partial-birth abortions also approved of Muslim prayer in schools when federal rulings ban all other denominational prayers and activities.In a December 2003 decision, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton decided that it was lawful for a California middle school teacher to require students to recite Muslim prayers, get down on their knees and role-play as Muslim adherents.
As part of the class students were told to recite: "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of Creation, The Compassionate, the Merciful, King of Judgment-day! You alone we worship, and to You alone we pray for help, Guide us to the straight path."
The Byron County 7th-grade world history teacher was sued by the parents of one of the students, who claimed that their child had been coerced to engage in a religious practice.
Hamilton, in a summary judgment, ruled that the teacher's actions were legal.
The teacher prepared a student guide which said that as part of the study of Islam "you and your classmates will become Muslims."
According to court documents, the teacher also read the Koran and Muslim prayers out loud in class and required students to recite lines of Muslim prayers in class as well.
Students also were told to recite Islamic prayers as they exited the class, including the Muslim refrain "In the name of God, most merciful, most gracious."
The teacher also assigned students to fast or give up something like TV for a day to experience Islam's month of Ramadan and one of its pillars of faith.
At the end of their Islamic studies, students also were required to write an essay on Islam. But, but the teacher instructed her students, "BE CAREFUL HERE – If you don't have something positive to say, don't say anything!!!"
In her ruling, Judge Hamilton threw out the parents' case, saying the religious role-playing was not tantamount to the exercise of religion and the school activities were not of a devotional or religious nature.
In a December 2003 decision, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton decided that it was lawful for a California middle school teacher to require students to recite Muslim prayers, get down on their knees and role-play as Muslim adherents.
"An Obedient Dhimmi Is a Happy Dhimmi. Vote Kerry In '04!"
Since this judge finds it appropriate for children to learn this way, I suggest judges should learn about Islam by living in the Middle East. I wonder how many laws she'll be
overturning and passing over there.
This "judge"needs to spend time in a neo-natal ICU- It makes it real clear what partial birth abortion is-infanticide.
Oh, she knows.
Ugh, not passing but ruling on. Time to go to sleep!
You debauched kufr do not even realize, we've had control over your "judiciary" since Earl Warren.
When will you dhimmi learn?
Hamilton was appointed United States Magistrate Judge on April 2, 1991. Born June 12, 1952 in Illinois, Judge Hamilton received her B.A. from Stanford University in 1974 and her J.D. from University of Santa Clara School of Law in 1976.
Judge Hamilton served as Deputy Public Defender at the California State Public Defender's Office in San Francisco (1976-1980), Administrative Judge for the United States Merit Systems Protection Board in San Francisco (1980-1985), and Court Commissioner of the Municipal Court in Oakland (1985-1991).
SAN FRANCISCO, March 9, 2004
(LifeSiteNews.com) -
In its continuing battle to defend the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, the Justice Department has again been obstructed by an activist judge. US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled to deny the Bush administration access to redacted (names removed) medical files of clients who had partial-birth abortions from abortionists at San Francisco General hospital and the San Francisco Planned Parenthood site. The decision is being called a "victory" by the pro-abortion group.
Hamilton was one of three activist judges who issued bans on the enforcement of the partial-birth abortion legislation last November after it was signed into law by President Bush.
Planned Parenthood abortionists, and in this case, the city of San Francisco, have filed suit against the Justice Department to challenge the constitutionality of the ban.
Abortionists argue that the procedure is "medically necessary", however no evidence of such necessity has ever been surrendered to the Justice Department lawyers -- thereby crippling any ability they would have in ascertaining the necessity.
Judge Hamilton cited as reasons for the denial that she was protecting "the most intimate aspects of women's lives" and that case files would reveal nothing as far as the constitutionality of the law is concerned. She also said that, according to a San Francisco Chronicle report, the files would be "burdensome to produce."
Judge Hamilton also claimed that the legitimacy of the law will be determined by the "testimony of experts" as opposed to whether "one abortion or another fits the definition."
Federal Abortion Ban Trials - Privacy of Medical Records Rulings
Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Ashcroft
Planned Parenthood
March 5, 2004: Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Department of Justice's motion to compel the production of medical records of some 900 abortion patients from six Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country.
"There is no question that the patient is entitled to privacy and protection… Women are entitled to not have the government looking at their records." — Judge Hamilton, The New York Times, March 6, 2004
******
When the idea of visioning first arose, I was skeptical of its value. That changed when I learned that people who count themselves among the religious right had envisioned a future where they controlled the political agenda. That challenged me. It made me realize that we at Planned Parenthood need to dream big dreams about the world we want our children and great grandchildren to inherit. I realized that millions of people rely on Planned Parenthood and that we have a responsibility to consciously shape the future, rather than just reacting to obstacles and trying to seize opportunities as they arise. That is how I believe we will accomplish our mission in this new century.
Mary Shallenberger
PPFA Chairperson
1999-2001
******
The Planned Parenthood Vision for 2025: Promise, Beliefs, Goals
The Planned Parenthood vision has three parts: a Promise that embodies the overall spirit of what we wish to create; a Statement of Beliefs that amplifies the language of the Promise; and 10 goals that make the vision concrete. The Promise, Beliefs, and Goals are our blueprint for creating the future of our choice.
Visioning required us to step back and separate what we "do" from what we "believe." Most organizations that have withstood the test of time no longer "do" what they once did, but their core beliefs and convictions endure, just as ours have endured throughout our 85-year history. Our goals will be reached when there is no difference between what we "believe" and what we "do."
During visioning, we recognized that we would have to undertake new initiatives in public affairs, communication, and technology to make good on our promise. We recognized that providing reproductive health care services to all who need them means addressing broad social, political, and technological issues.
And so we are embarking on a journey of questioning, learning, acting on our goals, networking, and partnering. We believe that the more we are able to act on our vision of the future, the more the future will embody our vision.
Our vision will help us see life differently, lead us to positive change, reinforce our sense of moral certitude, inspire us to be passionate and to have compassion, and resonate in the hearts and minds of all who value hope, freedom, choices, and peace.
Another Dhimmi For Kerry! Allah Akbar!
(San Francisco, California) A San Jose gay couple is suing an internet based adoption service after it refused them service.
In a decision issued Wednesday, federal district court judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that a lawsuit against Adoption.com for discriminating against same-sex couples can proceed to trial.
bttt
Anyway we can start a petition similar to those
being sent for Terri Schiavo? One to the California Bar
and one to ? - she's mingling church and state - church
being Islam.
Judge Phyllis Hamilton
This bi*** is Fifth Columnist.
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 23, 2003 (ENS) - A federal judge ruled Friday that the U.S. Forest Service broke the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and several other laws by allowing livestock grazing on the North Fork of the Eel River in California's Six Rivers National Forest.
Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Native American elder Coyote Downey. It alleged Forest Service violations under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Rescissions Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
This is the quality of judgement and justice we get from token appointments. The Congress should impeach her for stupidity. This is why I hold the courts in contempt!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.