Posted on 01/22/2009 5:42:03 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
CHICAGO A federal judge has ruled that a state law requiring a moment of silence in public schools across Illinois is unconstitutional, saying it crosses the line separating church and state.
"The statute is a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate religion," U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman said in his ruling Wednesday.
The ruling came in a lawsuit designed to bar schools from enforcing the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. It was filed by talk show host Rob Sherman, an outspoken atheist, and his daughter, Dawn, a high school student.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This judge needs to have his head examined.
Except that separation of church and state, as liberals so often tout and as defined in the Constitution, does not prohibit prayer in the classroom, nor nativity scenes in the town square. They forget entirely that our nation was founded on religious principles by religious people, that most people in the world worship some higher power, and that they are not empowered to deny religious practices in schools at the federal level.
States and local municipalities can do as they wish as long as such actions are not prohibited expressly under the founding documents.
But easter decorations plastered all over Amtrak trains are not, apparently.
Betcha a dollar that if it was a moment of silence to wish the Dear Leader well, it would not have been unconstitutional.
These judges have crossed the time a long time ago. Now Obama is going to appoint three idiots just like this to the Supreme Court. Of all the horrible havoc Obama will bring to our country, his Supreme Court nominees will perhaps be the worst. Well, next to his surrendering the war on terror.
Good grief, this judge is a real maroon (as are the folks who filed this silly suit).
Yes, the worship of Obamessiah is allowed and encouraged!
Nominated by William J. Clinton on August 16, 1994, to a seat vacated by John F. Grady; Confirmed by the Senate on October 7, 1994, and received commission on October 11, 1994.
Just a thought here. If this is termed unconstitutional because it crosses the boundary of separation, wouldn’t acceptance of gays and pre-marital sex also cross the line because of a violation of a childs religious upbringing?
And if so, how come we do not file suit?
Exactly what I was wondering!
First: If you don’t like it don’t participate.
Second: You are infringing on the rights of the other students who want to participate.
Third: Try Home schooling you delinquent daughter and she would not be subjected to this.
No moment of silence because kids may “contemplate” religion.
No doubt all of the schools TV’s were tuned in to the inauguration so they could worship Slobama.
My friends’ children attended Illinois school with the daughter whose father brought forth the original suit. Not sure if it’s the same people named in the article but the original petitioner drove a car with an anti-religion license plate and the student was a nut job who went around parroting her dad’s obnoxious views. They felt it was against their rights to keep having to listen to her.
Talk about legislating from the bench!
Memo to males in Dawn’s high school: exclude her completely from the dating scene. I imagine her kook of a father has already stigmatized her but let her find out what the sharp end of free association feels like.
Another Schmuck Judge should be put out of office and off the taxpayer dole.
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.