'China-level' Christian persecution coming: court's ruling in Houston Bible case 'breath-taking'

WorldNetDaily ^ | 17 Aug 06 | WND

[Jezebelle]

You really are blind, aren't you? Or perhaps just another atheist.

[Jezebelle]

Did you have a point? Or was that strictly informational?

[Jezebelle]

Your entire post, which you can refresh your memory of by clicking on the "To XXX" box at the bottom of the post, which takes you to the post that the post is in reply to.

But of course you know that. You just have no good answer to what I posted to you.

[Jezebelle]

Pick any of the voluminous number of cases in which they've been overturned.

[MuddyWaters2006]

NWOC

[MuddyWaters2006]

NWOC

[MuddyWaters2006]

I dunno. I forgot by now.

[Lancey Howard]

"For this panel majority of two justices to claim that words and actions by private citizens or elected officials with religious content, expressed about a building or monument, convert it from 'secular' and constitutional to 'sacred' and unconstitutional amounts to an act of blatant judicial activism against the freedoms and Constitution," the HAPC said.

Okay. This was just two scumbags. There's at least two scumbags on every court. This idiocy will be blown away when decided by the whole court.

[MuddyWaters2006]

Your entire post, which you can refresh your memory of by clicking on the "To XXX" box at the bottom of the post, which takes you to the post that the post is in reply to. Far Out! Ya learned me something new, jez my love. Thank ya, madam.

[Gone GF]

What I described in 132 would be more of a "China-level" persecution. That's not happening in the U.S.

[Gone GF]

"The ACLU has been extremely active in the assault on expression of Christian faith."

They've also been active in defending it.

I repeat, I'd like to know if they were actually involved in this case (which will undoubtedly be overturned).

[MuddyWaters2006]

Pick any of the voluminous number of cases in which they've been overturned.

Ok, I pick Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. Now what?


************************************************************

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

542 U.S. 1 (2004)

Docket Number: 02-1624

Abstract

Decided:

June 14, 2004

Argued:

March 29, 2004

Facts of the Case

Michael Newdow's daughter attended public school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in California. Elk Grove teachers began school days by leading students in a voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words "under God" added by a 1954 Congressional act. Newdow sued in federal district court in California, arguing that making students listen - even if they choose not to participate - to the words "under God" violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The district court dismissed Newdow's complaint for lack of standing, because he and the mother of his daughter are divorced and he does not have custody. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Newdow did have standing "to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter." The Ninth Circuit ruled that Congress's 1954 act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge and the school district policy requiring it be recited both violated the First Amendment's establishment clause.

Question Presented

Does Michael Newdow have standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? Does a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

In an opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court found that Newdow did not have standing to bring suit because he did not have sufficient custody over his daugther. "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice Stevens wrote. Because it found that Newdow did not have standing, the Court failed to reach the constitutional question. Chief Justice Renquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas all wrote seperate concurrences, saying that requiring teachers to lead the Pledge is constitutional.

[tutstar]

Tell me I'm not in the Twilight Zone!


Baptist Ping (wag moral absolutes candidate)

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

A few more court decisions like this week's over a display of a Bible in Houston and the United States will be approaching the "China-level" for Christian persecution, according to a leader in the midst of that battle.

Well, this article has reached a WorldNetDaily level of hyperbole--oh, that's why, never mind.

[JamesP81]

"Any kind of an event is okay, as long as you didn't express any religious faith. What is that telling you?"

That if the American experiment isn't dead, it's terribly close.

[CindyDawg]

DC too.

[CindyDawg]

I think suing ought to be a last result but....a bunch of class action law suits against the ones messing with our civil rights might shut some of this down. Any of you lawyers want to get rich (er)?

[Stone Mountain]

Why did I know it was a WorldNetDaily piece just from the title?

[MuddyWaters2006]

More and more it appears that "separation of church and state" = "atheism is the state religion." Is that really what the Founding Fathers intended? I don't think so. The time for massive displays of civil disobedience over this issue is almost at hand.


Naw, they just wanted to abolish religion as is evidenced by the following excerpt from the House debates during the proceedings that produced the First Amendment.

"Saturday, August 15, 1789:

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.

The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.'

Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. he feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether."

[WKUHilltopper]

for later read...