'Jesus Christ' banned at town hall

World Net Daily ^ | 8/25/03 | n/a

[Paloma_55]

Wiccan high priestess won federal court ruling on council's prayers

Council members in a South Carolina town can no longer mention the name of Jesus Christ or another specific deity in their prayers during meetings.

The federal court ruling referred to a case brought by a Wiccan high priestess in Great Falls, the local Chester County Herald reported.

Darla Kaye Wynne, a Great Falls resident, claimed in her suit the town violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by using the name of Jesus Christ in prayers offered before or after meetings, the paper said.

[Paloma_55]

"Congress shall make no law Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

What is so difficult to understand about this statement???

How is it "establishment of religion" if a government employee "exercises their religion"???

Seems to me that this has been so twisted lately it is unbelieveable. The Constitution says nothing about "separation of church and state", but it specifically demands that the government "shall not prohibit free exercise"...

Now, it seems to me that telling government employees that they may not refer to particular deities while on the job is in fact, restricting the free exercise of their religious beliefs. How does a court come to this?

This is unbelieveable. Our courts enforce non-words in the constitution while ignoring real-words.

Someone care to illuminate the flaw in my perspective here?

[sauropod]

No illumination necessary. You are dead on.

[ChemistCat]

The scriptures are full of this; history is full of this. When we had a functional Constitution, we enjoyed a brief time of relative freedom from state coersion of religion. That time is now over--and it was an aberration of history. Now we hunker down. The sheep and the goats will out. It's not at all hard to understand. Why are we surprised? We were told it was coming. And it's just going to get worse. Endure to the end.

[hapy]

We should all show up at the next town hall meeting and pray.

See what happens next

[jwalsh07]

U.S. District Court Judge Cameron McGowan Currie's decision, however, stated the council is barred from "invoking the name of a specific deity associated with any one specific faith or belief in prayers given at Town Council meetings ... ."

What he failed to say was that you must pray to the state and bow to the federalales.

It won't be long before the frogs come around defending even this, the state telling indivduals how to pray and who they pray to.

[wideawake]

Exodus 22:18.

[Ff--150]

The federal court ruling referred to a case brought by a Wiccan high priestess in Great Falls

Again, note no name or names are mentioned, because the court is honored, and therefore ABOVE the constitution.

Until some start investigating the "missing" thirteenth amendment, understanding how a court can override the Constitution of the United States is confusing and fruitless...

[cookcounty]

The next chaplain to offer prayer should close his prayer, "......we ask these petitions in Your Holy, Illegal, and Censored Name, despised and rejected by many, Amen."

[Sunshine Sister]

I hope you will be my proxy! Go get 'em!

[FroedrickVonFreepenstein]

EXACTLY, its past time to take action. Good people need to stand up and be heard. The cowards will back down if we do.

[bethelgrad]

Ok, we will just not say Jesus Christ. Instead, we will close our prayer with.."In the name of your only begotten Son who died for the sins of the world...especially the sins of those Wiccans who deny you and are in danger of everlasting torment due to their unbelief."

Not as simple as closing in Jesus' name, but should suffice due to our present constitutional crises.

[4CJ]

Until some start investigating the "missing" thirteenth amendment, understanding how a court can override the Constitution of the United States is confusing and fruitless...

Ask Justices Jay, Marshall, Chase et al.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[Paloma_55]

US Senate:1954

"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

US Senate:2004

"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Christian Faith?

[ConfusedAndLovingIt]

'Jesus Christ' banned at town hall

Unless used as an expletive.

[sauropod]

Bingo!

[Arpege92]

If your not a Chritian and don't want to pray, then don't! Leave those who do want to pray....to pray! You have a choice but you don't have a right to take that same choice away from people who are different from you.

May I suggest that this B_tch....excuse me.....this Witch jump on her broom stick and fly the hell out of a room where Christians are praying!

[varina davis]

Ask Justices Jay, Marshall, Chase et al.

Right on target 4CJ.

[tractorman]

Everyone in the courthouse should tape a dollar bill to their forehead so all can read:

“In God We Trust”.

[4CJ]

Thank you ma'am. Not that any of the modern justices are any better, just pointing out that the tradition started long ago. Marshall was one of the worst, stating one thing in the Virginia ratification debates, yet another as Chief Justice.

Is not liberty secure with us, where the people hold all powers in their own hands, and delegate them cautiously, for short periods, to their servants, who are accountable for the smallest mal-administration?
John Marshall, 10 Jun 1788, Elliot's Debates, Vol 3, p. 232.

So much for perpetual delegation of powers.

We are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim, that those who give may take away. It is the people that give power, and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it.
Ibid, p. 233.

So much for secession.

Are they not both the servants of the people? Are not Congress and the state legislatures the agents of the people, and are they not to consult the good of the people?
Ibid.

So much for the federal government being the master.

Lastly, some would allege that Marshall was referring to the American people en masse when he refers to 'the people'. Marshall took great pains to indicate otherwise:

I shall ask the worthy member only, if the people at large, and they alone ...
Ibid, p. 225.

It is objected, that Congress will not know how to lay taxes so as to be easy and convenient for the people at large.
Ibid, p. 229.

If they wish to retain the affections of the people at large ...
Ibid, p. 230.

Will it be by wantonly imposing hardships and difficulties on the people at large ...
Ibid, p. 230.

To procure their reëlection, it will be necessary for them to confer with the people at large...
Ibid, p. 231.

Last but not least, the clincher:

Can you believe that ten men selected from all parts of the state, chosen because they know the situation of the people, will be unable to determine so as to make the tax equal on, and convenient for, the people at large?
Ibid, pp. 229-230.

President Davis was correct. Unilateral secession was legal.