Supreme Court asked to hear witch case

Richmond Times-Dispatch ^ | 8/9/05

[doug from upland]

[gpapa]

Pointy hat.
You need a little contrast in that peep-hole pic Doug. How about a white pointy hat adorning the pate of that guy from wv with a pitchfork in hand.

[orionblamblam]

> Gavel the meeting to order, call her to the podium, then exit until she's done.

Good opportunity for her to:
1: Filibuster for *hours*
2: Get new rules and such passed while the whiners are outside
3: Lay down whoopie cushions
4: Change the locks
5: Replace the pianist's sheet music with "Stairway to Heaven".
6: Burn a *LOT* of incense
7: Hang up Wiccan stuff next to the Ten Commandments
8: Replace the whiners with actors dressed up like Satanists

[clee1]

Which case?

[IronJack]

Several suggestions that surpass the sense of humor associated with idiot cults. And to counter those possibilities, the Board could pass a rule stipulating that the invocation be no longer than 2 minutes or so.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Which case?

[HiTech RedNeck]

The BSA policy is that the boy's father has to "believe in God." No standard is stated about what that "God" has to be. A Hindu would qualify, and there are various new age "God"'s.

[Jeff Blogworthy]

It's not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but that was the thinking among the Fathers around that time:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -- -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

That's interesting, but I'm not buying your interpretation. There is a vast difference between affording a religion "protection" and giving one "preference." All religions are protected, but it is obvious that neither Islam or Hinduism has ever been our preferred religion. Our nation should not allow prayers to Satan in the senate - the apparent goal of the ACLU and our opponents on the Left. The Judeo-Christian ethic is given preeminence throughout our history and it has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court that this is so:

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. . .because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts. . . . There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. . . . And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, this Court . . . observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law . . . ." These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation . . . we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. . . . The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality. . . . Religion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind. . . .(Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892)

It is not until the influx of secular humanist philosophy in the courts that we see a historical shift - and not for the better.

The first Muslim prayer was given in the U.S. Senate in 1992. If your broad interpretation of Jefferson's words are correct, one would have expected that to occur much sooner. Our nation and laws are not founded on Muslim or Hindu principles.

I can find many more quotes to support my supposition than you can yours. If we continue down this road to multiculturalism while denying our plain heritage, enslavement will result. The secular humanist religion is the real threat to our liberty, not Christianity.

Recommended reading: America's Real War, by Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

[antiRepublicrat]

That's interesting, but I'm not buying your interpretation. There is a vast difference between affording a religion "protection" and giving one "preference."

The point is that the Fathers knew that while most people here were Christian, the government needed to be religion-neutral in order to ensure freedom. This woman is not asking for preference, merely equal treatment.

The first Muslim prayer was given in the U.S. Senate in 1992. If your broad interpretation of Jefferson's words are correct, one would have expected that to occur much sooner.

The timing doesn't matter, only that our society has enough representation of these other religions. It now does.

If we continue down this road to multiculturalism while denying our plain heritage, enslavement will result. The secular humanist religion is the real threat to our liberty, not Christianity.

History shows that preference and support of one religion by the government results in slavery and oppression. Look no further than the recently deposed Christian Charles Taylor (a good friend of Pat Robertson's) to see what happens in an absolutely Christian government.

[Jeff Blogworthy]

religion-neutral

The idea of being "religion neutral" or "morally neutral" is both a logical fallacy and an impossibility. Atheism is also a religion, as is secular humanism. Rejecting religious moral values does not mean they are replaced with nothing - as we plainly see today.

preference and support of one religion by the government results in slavery and oppression

Wrong again. The preference of one religion (Christianity) has resulted in the most free and most prosperous nation on earth, as well as the leadership and success of Western Civilization as a whole, while antipathy toward Christianity has resulted in the most imhuman, murderous regimes ever known. Over 100 million dead due to Godless Communism, millions more lost to Nazism, still millions more to the horror of abortion - not to mention the religious persecution by Islam, as opposed to the tolerance fostered by Christianity.

[orionblamblam]

> Atheism is also a religion

Please define "religion" for us.

[steve-b]

it is obvious that neither Islam or Hinduism has ever been our preferred religion

The Constitution prohibits ANY "government-preferred" religion.

[steve-b]

The idea of being "religion neutral" or "morally neutral" is both a logical fallacy and an impossibility.

What an utterly idiotic assertion.

Name the religion which is given preference by the law "You must drive on the right side of the road."

[orionblamblam]

> Several suggestions that surpass the sense of humor associated with idiot cults.

Indeed. That's why many of the whiners (those who would leave the room when someone not of their religion gets up to speak) simply wouldn't understand.

And that's what'd make it even *funnier.* Few things funnier than a holier-than-thou boob being mocked and not getting it.

> the Board could pass a rule stipulating that the invocation be no longer than 2 minutes or so

Why 2 minutes? 2 seconds would be better. They are there to do a job, not hold a prayer meeting.

[steve-b]

the tolerance fostered by Christianity

[orionblamblam]

> Name the religion which is given preference by the law "You must drive on the right side of the road."


Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, clearly.

[orionblamblam]

the tolerance fostered by Christianity

[antiRepublicrat]

The idea of being "religion neutral" or "morally neutral" is both a logical fallacy and an impossibility.

It may be in a theocracy, but this is not a theocracy. It's a really simple concept that I know can be hard for theocrats like yourself to understand: just treat people the same, and afford them the same rights and privileges, without regard to religion. That's called freedom.

Atheism is also a religion

And "bald" is a hair color.

The preference of one religion (Christianity) has resulted in the most free and most prosperous nation on earth

It has also resulted in countless horrors and abuses throughout history, right up to Charles Taylor, a "good Christian" according to Pat Robertson.

Sorry, AFAIK, no theocracy or government led by religion has ever protected the rights of all of its people (I'll have to check on the politics of the Tibetan Buddhists to be sure I'm right though). It is precisely because the Founders separated the official power of government from religion that we have the freedoms we do today.

Religious people acting on their Christian convictions have produced a relatively free country here, but that is partially because it was within the confines of law that restricts their ability to completely impose their Christian will on the nation. Can you imagine what this country would be like as a Christian theocracy? If the laws of the Bible (aside from Kosher law) were put into place?

[IronJack]

Few things funnier than a holier-than-thou boob being mocked and not getting it.

Except a crackpot crystal-worshipping faddist getting up to prove a point to rows of empty chairs.

Why 2 minutes? 2 seconds would be better. They are there to do a job, not hold a prayer meeting.

For the same reason our coinage bears the motto "In God We Trust" and our national anthem includes the phrase "this heaven-rescued land." For the same reason our framing document is written "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." For the same reason the Ten Commandments are chiseled in stone in the chambers of the Supreme Court. We ask God -- the real God, not this week's flavor -- to guide His fallible creations in the work they're about to undertake.

We're a Christain nation. Get over it.

[Jeff Blogworthy]

The Christian "theocracy" thing is just a canard used to scare people. Christianity is not so monolithic as that.

The only "power" that Christians have lies in the ability to persuade people (with the Holy Spirit) through declarations of truth and reasoning. Then the people who have been persuaded vote accordingly and contact their representatives. This is somehow seen as a "threat." An all-out assault is currently being waged to strip Christians of the ability to speak, and participate in government, through the use of activist judges and groups like the ACLU. The opinions of Christians are slowly being redefined as "hate speech."

no theocracy or government led by religion

I don't think I said anything about government "led by religion." Rather, our national consciences and laws have been informed by the Christian religion. This is not opinion - it is an undeniable fact.

All this talk of Christians "imposing their will" is just silly. Are you completely blind? Look around - whose will is being imposed on whom? Like I said - the only abliity any Christian has to impose his will is through the appropriate channels of representative government, just like everyone else.

Speaking of "imposing wills" - here is a good example.