Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Parents Sue School over 'Lord's Prayer'
FOX NEWS VIA WORLDNETDAILY ^ | 5/02/02 | Steve Brown

Posted on 05/02/2002 4:48:32 PM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:33:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Christine Skarin and her daughters are suing over Woodbine High School's graduation song.

WOODBINE, Iowa

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; christianlist; graduation; lordsprayer; over; parent; parents; school; sue; sues
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-191 next last
To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!;admin moderator;Jim Robinson;Dr. Brian Kopp
To be consistent with the way the Catholic threads are treated, shouldn't this be moved to the Religion forum?
41 posted on 05/02/2002 7:11:12 PM PDT by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
These and other athiests seem to be more involved with what they believe than most of us. I do not believe in athieisism, but I care not what they think, say or do. Just as long as they do not tread on my Christian toes, or your your Jewish feet or whatever your think yourself to be. I suspect this is more bull, financed and promoted by some left wing organization.

Ignore these pathetic people who's ears, and hearts cannot bear the word "GOD".

42 posted on 05/02/2002 7:16:14 PM PDT by wingnuts'nbolts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valor Dracul
"Seperation of Church and State" is an American fundamental. And, no matter what your personal beliefs or convictions may be regarding this particular case, nothing can change that, or should try.

No it is not.

Justice Hugo Black, when he was head of membership for the largest Klu Klux Klan cell in the South, made new recruits swear to Separation before they were admitted to the Klan. Black was a nativist and anti-Catholic bigot. When he became a Justice of the Supreme Court, he wrote Separation of Church and State into first amendment law in 1947. The Supreme Court in the last two years has not endorsed Separation , whether holding for religious groups or against them. The US Supreme Court has dropped the Separation metaphor, which was never in the First Amendment anyway. They have not yet replaced it with anything. So we had Separation from about 1947-98, not before and not since.

Jefferson was a Unitarian. In many states his church was supported by state taxes. Church services were held in the House of Representatives until after the Civil War. Our first congress authorized the printing of thousands of Bibles and gave land to missionaries in order to convert Native Americans to Christainity. Jefferson attended a 4 hour communion service at the Treasury Department. Even the chambers of the Supreme Court were used for church services.

"Separation of Church and State" is a recent liberal construct. It has no consitutional basis.

43 posted on 05/02/2002 7:21:01 PM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
This is true. Everyone needs to read it!
44 posted on 05/02/2002 7:22:52 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TheMole
I look at that lawyer's picture and I almost feel sympathetic for someone who has to go through life looking that ugly

Isn't Professor Frank a typical ratty looking hippy-dippy commissar? A creature right out of Dr. Zhivago. Looks like her boss, Donald Stone, is friends with the Commies at the National Lawyer's Guild.

Come To The NLG Midwest Regional Conference in Iowa
March 1-3, Boyd Law Building, University of Iowa

Featured speakers include Leone Bicchieri (National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice), Dan Holub (Director of the University of Iowa Institute for Labor Studies), Nick Johnson (UI Law Professor, and former head of the Federal Communications Commission), Bruce Nestor (President, National Lawyers Guild), Sandra Sanchez (Iowa Immigration Rights Project), Mac Scott (NLG National Student Coordinator), Ahmed Shawki (Editor of the International Socialist Review). Ben Stone (Director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union), Jeffrey Weiss (Education Director of the American Friends Service Committee), Adrienne Wing (UI Law Professor and consultant to the South African Constitutional Committee), and many more . .



Report of the Senate
Fact-Finding Subcommitteee on
Un-American Activities in
California, no. 11, 1961

National Lawyers Guild

Since our last report is still in print and since this Communist front, organization is described therein at length, we cite our readers who are interested in learning more about this particular organization to our 1959 report at pages 20, 126-135, 137, 144, 197.

It is still extremely active throughout the United States, and has powerful chapters in virtually all of the large cities in California.

Since this organization has long been characterized as Communist-dominated by this Committee and other official agencies, and since it has been cited before the Subversive Activities Control Board in Washington, D.C., virtually all of the members who were attracted to the organization because they believed it was a completely independent liberal organization of attorneys filling a need for a group more liberal than the American Bar Association, quickly withdrew when they discovered the true nature of the control of the National Lawyers Guild leaving a membership of individuals who either didn't care if it were known they were persisting in their membership with a Communist front organization, or whose records of ideological conviction would naturally impel them to gravitate toward such an organization.


Contact information:

The ACLU: Past, Present, and Future
Iowa
Executive Director: Ben Stone
446 Insurance Exchange Bldg.
Des Moines, IA 50309
Phone: (515) 243-3576
E-mail: iclu@radiks.net


45 posted on 05/02/2002 7:26:50 PM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
This is true. Everyone needs to read it! (#43)

Isn'ta it amazing that on a conservative forum there are people saying they think this or that speech should be allowed. My God, we are lost. What they think they want to hear means nothing. What the First Amendment was intended to protect and encourage means everything.

46 posted on 05/02/2002 7:32:32 PM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
"Separation of Church and State" is a recent liberal construct. It has no constutional basis.

You might be interested in an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to Baptists who were being persecuted because they were not part of the Congregationalist establishment of Connecticut: Jefferson Letter

The 1791 First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

To me that says keep government out of religion. It also says CFR is clearly unconstitutional. If you use the First Amendment to fight CFR, are you going to ignore the rest of the First Amendment as far as religion is concerned? You practice what religion you want, and I'll practice mine. Keep government (and government schools) out of it.

47 posted on 05/02/2002 8:46:18 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
You practice what religion you want, and I'll practice mine. Keep government (and government schools) out of it.

Better than that, let's stamp out the abomination of government schools altogether so that no faction can use government force to impose their belief system on others against their will. Religion is certainly pervasive enough to survive without government sponsorship. Isn't it? Without government school monopolies the free market would spring into action providing schools to serve the varying needs of the community and nobody would be forced to pay for, or participate in, the promotion of doctrine they oppose. Frankly, I don't see how an honest christian can stand in support of the continuation of government run schools.

48 posted on 05/02/2002 9:03:01 PM PDT by Jolly Rodgers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut was prompted by a widespread rumor that Congregationalistism was about to become the national religion. At that time, Congregationalists in Connecticut were supported by state taxes. Jefferson was a politician and he was attempting to put to rest Baptists fears.

To establish a rapport with the Baptists (Jefferson was a Unitarian , a group closely allied with the feared Congregationalists), Jefferson borrowed from the words of Roger Williams, a prominent Baptist preacher:

"When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.."

The "wall" metaphor was one directional. The church was to be protected from incursion from the state not the other way around.

This is made evident by the following:

From Affinities and Animosities: Universalists and Unitarians in the Formative Period :

When, in late 1820 and early 1821, Massachusetts went through the exercise of revising its Constitution, the attempt to separate church and state was opposed successfully by the eloquent Daniel Webster, among others. Channing, and a number of other Unitarian ministers, sided with Webster. In an eloquent sermon in December 1820, titled Religion a Social Principle, Channing defended the union of church and state, arguing that religion is not merely a personal matter between God and human beings: ". . .Therefore, Society ought, through its great organ and representative, which is government, as well as by other methods, to pay homage to God, and express its obligation."



Daniel Webster and Unitarians won that debate. The Unitarian and Congregational churches continued to be funded by state taxes for over ten more years.

Thomas Jefferson wrote on June 22, 1822:

"I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one God is reviving and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian."

The question arises that if Jefferson's Danbury letter does advocate a separation of church and state as some claim it does, what was Jefferson doing proselytizing for and being in a congregation which opposed such a notion?

Channing was the most prominent Unitarian minister of the day. Jefferson surely knew about the debate which had raged one year before he made the comment above.

49 posted on 05/02/2002 9:11:05 PM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
There’s something off-key about that for the Skarins, who are atheists in a predominantly Christian town...sounds as though they want a law to prevent the rest of the town from the free exercise of their religious beliefs - the First Amendment specifically forbids such laws....
50 posted on 05/02/2002 9:17:47 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
Maybe the Skarin's should try homeschooling.
51 posted on 05/02/2002 9:35:17 PM PDT by 3catsanadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Millburn Drysdale
The ACLU takes these cases not out of any institutional hatred of G-d but instead as a means of creating discord among Americans of all faiths or no faith. Their aim is using the discord to destroy our nation not any matter of religious observance or lack thereof.

A house divided cannot stand.

52 posted on 05/02/2002 9:37:27 PM PDT by 3catsanadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
Don't forget "It's for the children."
53 posted on 05/02/2002 9:38:15 PM PDT by 3catsanadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ
I imagine the Skarins would be offended by this Revolutionary War Battle Flag too:


Gostelowe Standard No. 10, c. 1776
Many battle flags of the American Revolution carried religious inscriptions. More examples at the Library of Congress

54 posted on 05/02/2002 9:39:43 PM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
It seems pretty clear that Jefferson's Danbury letter deals with freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state, great principles embodied in the First Amendment.

I don't think any churches should receive tax money, as your post notes they did in the early 1800s. The fact that Massachusetts churches might have argued to stay on the public dole doesn't make it right or indicate that Jefferson supported that specific action.

Jefferson's Unitarian church may have differed considerably from the Massachusetts Unitarian churches. The three Unitarian churches I've been to in different parts of the country were quite different.

One need only read about the European wars of religion that preceeded the development of our Constitution to see the dangers of state sponsorship of religion. If you didn't belong to the state church, in some places you were in danger of being burned at the stake or prohibited from holding services or having your churches destroyed. Toleration of other religious beliefs or nonbelief was slow in coming and is still hard for some to accept.

55 posted on 05/02/2002 10:18:27 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: zook
"and if the girls fully understood that being in the choir would occasionally require them to sing religious songs--as art, not as religion."

Considering that the song is "Woodbine High School’s traditional graduation song" I would assume that they knew that when they joined.

56 posted on 05/02/2002 10:23:55 PM PDT by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
The tyranny of the minority who are offended by a God they don't believe in. Go figure.

My vote for quote of the day.

57 posted on 05/02/2002 10:28:03 PM PDT by cardinal4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Jefferson's Unitarian church may have differed considerably from the Massachusetts Unitarian churches. The three Unitarian churches I've been to in different parts of the country were quite different.

The Unitarian church of today has little to do with the Unitarian church of Jefferson's time. If you read Channings sermons, Adams writings, the Jefferson Bible, the works of Priestly,Theophilus Lindsey and other antitrinitarians you will see they were all on the same page. No Buddhists, no wiccans, no atheists wandering the aisles of the Unitarian churches back then. They all considered themselves Christians (many other Christians did not however).

The intent of Jefferson and others was to encourage religion, not limit it. The only restriction was that there would be no Federal church. All the founders agreed that a religious moral citizenry was essential if a democratically elected constitutional republic were to survive. The first amendment was an antitrust act of sorts, the purpose of which was to allow all religions to flourish and be vigorously debated in the public arena.

An analogous system was devised for the states. Federal power would be limited, experiments in democracy would take place in all the states and the best system would be, naturally, copied by others.

Btw... the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic were written by a Unitarian. I doubt a UU of today would pen the words the radical Unitarian feminist Julia Ward Howe did in 1861:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

58 posted on 05/02/2002 11:14:31 PM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
It seems pretty clear that Jefferson's Danbury letter deals with freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state, great principles embodied in the First Amendment.

How can you say that? I simply don't get it. If they wanted separation of church and state, the founders would have put it in the constitution. They didn't. The concept was not written into constitutional law until 1947.

While you, like all of us, have opinion on what should be, to claim there is a constitutional basis for your opinion is simply not the case. You can't take one phrase out of a letter Jefferson wrote and claim it has legal validity. It doesn't. Do you think the letter Jefferson wrote expressing the desire that all Americans become Unitarians has any legal standing? That the government should try to fulfill his wishes and promote Unitarianism? Of course not.

59 posted on 05/02/2002 11:23:25 PM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-191 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson