Supremes reject Christian student appeal

Under sharia law the ACLU would be totally irrelevant, wouldn't it.

 

Your statement doesn't make a lot of sense, but as shari'ia is contrary to the US Constitution including the Bill of Rights, the ACLU would oppose it here.

 

Oh they would? Judging by their past record, they only oppose those dangerous Christians. Somehow I can't see ACLU lawyers risking decapitation by arguing that sharia law is contrary to the Constitution.

 

This is exactly why I believe that children should be taught religion at home and in the church. The government has no place in religious education (Muslim or Christian).

 

Here is a linkie to the actual decision.

 

Hello Daisy,

OK, I can agree with you here and my definition was much as yours. However your connotation now is highly different than it was meant earlier, to say the least. Nor would I have never guessed you are hunky-dory with Theocrats. Considering your earlier posts and given your strong opposition to even a hint of our Lord or His Word in School. You are very contradictory here or seemingly. If this were a Theocracy or ran by Theocrats, we would not be having this specific debate would we?! As Voluntary Prayer and the Commandments most assuredly would be allowed in Schools.

But Daisy I never took issue with your simply calling me a theocrat, nor was that said. What you stated to everyone is that I was a “Right Winger” who wanted to “impose Theocracy”! "Did you read Ralph's post? Some right-wingers….do want to impose theocracy".
That was a derisive and indeed disparaging statement no matter how you look at it. But I thought we had settled this and as far as I am concerned it is.

Daisy? At least I am getting a chuckle now and then. If this is not asking for clarity I will be certain to spell it out in the future. “How my position is different than what or who? I am not exactly sure what you mean here.” I wasn’t sure if you were speaking of someone specific within this thread, as noted! But I did take the initiative and give general as well as specific answers for you. Which I thought you would appreciate.

I don’t reject Theocracy per se. I just don’t think such is practical or even possible given the diversity of America. As it is, we are having great difficulties keeping His Word in the public all together! With having the Ten Commandments, Holy Bible, and Voluntary prayer removal from Schools. Remember?

In addition, I am quite familiar with what goes on in Schools and with some things taught. As I keep up with such from a Christian perspective. Not to mention proudly having several Teachers in our family and being an avid reader.
You really should consider investing in a good dictionary though. Your pocket dictionary is obviously lacking and a mind is a terrible thing to waste. As sarcasm has various a definition or applications other than irony. It however, is not something I would ever allow myself to fall into! Hee, hee.

You have pretty much come full circle with the rest of your statements. Several almost verbatim to MP and as I have already addressed, with #41 summing it up pretty well for me.

I am sorry you feel that way.
Because I most definitely do not think a display of the Ten Commandments or having a simple and voluntary prayer available for students, is bad. Indeed I believe such would be very good. It surely could be done while maintaining consciousness of others. If that makes me a Theocrat I am proud to be one.:thumbs:


I appreciated your input.

Take care and have a great week Daisy.

In Christ, Ralph:jesus:

 

Hooray!! Page 32 alone opens a world of possibilities. I'm sharing this with a number of teachers in our congregation. Here's the opportunity to bring Christmas back into schools at the same level as Thanksgiving: "Well established jurisprudence supports these and similar activities when the activities are integrated into a secular cirriculum. Such activities, including the study of world religions using creative sound, interactive instructional techniques, do not conflict with basic constitutional values or constitute an endorsement of religions."

I can see this decision quoted in a number of future cases filed in an effort to stop the very mention of Christianity in schools.

 

It has always been possible to present Christianity in such studies, and previous court decisions have supported that. What is not permitted is the establishment of religion.

Hence, a comment on the Bible or Christian belief is not illegal unless it fails the Lemon Test:

• 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.

There is a good deal of ambiguity at the edges of this definition, and hence all the court cases that settle such things. Suffice to say that there could be some opportunity to bring religion further into schools, but not very much.

 

Hello again Daisy,

This post is not so much directed at you as it is in setting the record straight. The bottom does contain some new and interesting points. I am unsure if they were made yet.


I spent quite a bit of time correcting things you said and trying to answer point by point. However, because of such the overall picture tended to be clouded and possible impressions drawn. I am sorry for re-hashing some things but is needed. In addition I think some of my earlier views are well stated with this post from several months ago. Which is a consistent stance for me.

Daisy you stated definitive things about me in regards to Theocracy. Though after confronting, you admitted not even knowing exactly where I stood on the issue! When taken into consideration what you stated and what I have actually said, clueless was the proper word.


I have typically spoken against Theocracy as stated above in first sentence. Not because I am against such but because it is not realistic in America. The diversity is too great among the people and with the many different Christian Denominations. I don't believe a nation which sought to base it's government on our Lord's word and in good Christian spirit would be bad. I just don't think it is possible or practical in America.

However America has/had always been a God loving and fearing Christian nation where the greatest majority were of such. I will do what I can to continue to maintain that and our Christian heritage. As I see such as standing for the Lord.

Asking that the Commandments be returned to Schools or that a simple and voluntary prayer, is available for students, is not shoving Christianity upon anyone. It would be a good thing and I truly cannot see how any Christian could view it as something bad.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now directly in regards to this thread. It was the Anti Christian Loser's Union(ACLU) who represented Abdurahman Alamoudi in implementing this three week Islamic course. A. Alamoudi was soon afterward charged and then convicted of terrorist funding.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/13/172143.shtml

Department of Justice http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/October/04_crm_698.htm


ACLU=we want America rid of Christian influence so we can Liberate it for Us and the motherland! Ha, what a pathetic organization.:tonofbricks:



Take care,:jesus: :jesus:

 

Frankly, I do not wish to see Christianity taught in public schools as a religion.

What I would like to see is recognition of Christmas as an American tradition, including carols in programs, allowing candy canes as gifts (Yeah, Plano is close.) Seniors as valedictorian and salutatorian being allowed to acknowledge their religions -- and, yes, I would include any religion, the hyperbolist always throws out "Wiccan?"

 

Why hello, Ralph. How wonderful to see you again!

If it's not directed at me, it's odd that you would put my name on it. If the points have been made already, they wouldn't be new and if you don't know, they might not be all that interesting.

Needed by whom? Possible impressions drawn?

Is it consistent for you to be so well-pleased with your posts from months ago that you feel compelled to quote yerself?

Is this also is not so much directed at me?

Actually what I said was, "Did you read Ralph's post? Some right-wingers would like to impose a theocracy." That is not exactly definitive - in fact, after you raised a fuss, I generously offered to go by your definition but good heavens! it took three posts to wring your definition of it out of you! Hardly seems worth it now.

Well gosh, Ralph, it's not as though I had claimed I did - it was a remark in passing. What a mountain you've made of it!

So you've condescendingly said.

Which first sentence would that be? Certainly not in this post of yours I'm quoting.

You typically speak against it, but you're not against it as such?

Hmmm, I dunno...you say you speak against something you think is good simply because it would be impractical? And you are proud of this?

Say, is this a clue, that you merely speak against it while not actually being against it?

***wipes tear from eye***

What is the purpose of putting the presumably Protestant version of the Commandments in schools? Students can already pray simply and voluntarily - why do you think they need a representative of the Government to lead them?

I truly believe you cannot and will not. That reminds me of a plaque I saw for sale which read, "If you disagree with me, I obviously have not explained myself." (I sadly confess it took me a while to realize why that was funny).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Derailing over?

Omg! That is so cute! Did you think that funny backronym all by yourself?

Yeah, he was arrested three years ago and convicted in 2004 for plotting with Libya to assassinate the Saudi prince, Abdulla. We like the Saudi royal family, except of one of the bin Ladens, of course.

I hafta say, Ralph, that one's not as clever, kinda clumsy - you did make that one up yourself, didn't you?

Call me old-fashioned, but I still support civil liberties for Americans.

 

I hope you don't mind that I agree with you. :thumbsup:

 

Now that could be construed as News. Agreeing to agree. Sounds agreeable to me!