Nobody but, an atheist would have a problem with this kind of religious expression on public land. I don't think even the rapists would.
Well, nobody except for atheists and a panel of Court of Appeal judges I guess.
And I have no idea what point you are making re: rapists? Are you suggesting that opposing roadside crosses on public land is more morally culpable than rape? Really?
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
would you prefer that the court rule against the constitution?
No I would prefer Gingrinch's solution of bringing activist judges before Congress and if they are found to be going beyond the intent of the constitution get rid of them. Apparently Jefferson canned 18 of the 36 federal judges during his presidency.
Honestly, not sure why I'm surprised here but for gods sake man at least make a half assed attempt to understand what you post.
Those kids were suspended for obstructing the hallways. It's a stupid reaction from the school, but it has nothing to do with religion.
Unless your naive enough to believe that loitering by teenagers are uncommon in a school hallway you've got to see that what caused the overreaction was the fact they were praying.
Unless your naive enough to believe that loitering by teenagers are uncommon in a school hallway you've got to see that what caused the overreaction was the fact they were praying.
Tebowing =/= praying. Trust me, I've done it, and I think your entire concept of religion is full blown ######ed.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
No I would prefer Gingrinch's solution of bringing activist judges before Congress and if they are found to be going beyond the intent of the constitution get rid of them. Apparently Jefferson canned 18 of the 36 federal judges during his presidency.
Haha! I see you're not a real fan of judicial independence (one of the foundations of modern democracy.)
Also, I wonder if the judges who held that the school board infringed the valedictorian's right to freedom of expression when they prohibited her from referring to God in her speech were "activist judges"? Or is it only the judges whose decisions you and Newt disagree with (how many years have you been practicing constitutional law again?) that are "activist"?
Lastly, I'm not sure about your characterization of Jefferson's presidency with respect to the judiciary:
Quote:
Judiciary
Jefferson was highly suspicious of the judges appointed by his predecessors; his opinion of good judges was much higher: one of his arguments for a bill of rights would be the power they would give the judiciary.[7] At his urging, Congress repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolishing the numerous district courts created at the end of the Adams presidency. The battle to abolish the Judiciary Act was not an easy one. Federalists argued that once the courts were created and judges were appointed, the Constitution directs that they serve for life unless impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". The Republican leadership, prompted by Jefferson, chose not to argue the political manipulation of the courts but instead chose to attack them based on the cost to the nation. Since many of the courts were created to pack the judiciary with lifetime Federalist judges, there were many circumstances in which there was no need for a court at all. The Republicans argued that the unwarranted nature of the courts combined with their excessive cost justified repeal for the Judiciary Act. Despite the fact that this argument required a "loose" interpretation of the Constitution, which Jefferson rallied against when he fought the creation of Hamilton's First Bank of the United States, the Congress was successful in reversing the law.
This also left numerous Federalist "midnight judges" without positions. Since the creation of these "midnight judge" positions was done to protect the courts from Republican appointees, Jefferson felt justified in not awarding the commissions creating the new federal judges. One commission that he was unable to prevent was the appointment of former Secretary of StateJohn Marshall to the position of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Although Marshall was a cousin of Jefferson, he was a strong Federalist in the tradition of John Adams. Marshall's influence on the Court would help to firmly entrench the supremacy of the federal government. One of the first cases Marshall was asked to decide was that of William Marbury, one of the "midnight judges" who was requesting that the Court issue a writ of mandamus to Secretary of State James Madison ordering the delivery of the judicial commissions. The resulting case, Marbury v. Madison, set the landmark precedent of judicial review for the Supreme Court.
The Republicans were not content with simply overturning the Judiciary Act of 1801 and removing the "midnight judges." They next planned to impeach existing federal judges to remove them from office. The first case was John Pickering, a Federalist judge who exhibited signs of insanity and public drunkenness. At Jefferson's instigation, the House of Representatives impeached Pickering in 1804 and the Senate removed him from the bench later that year. Jefferson next set his sights on the Supreme Court. Reading that Federalist Justice Samuel Chase told a grand jury that the Republicans threatened "peace and order, freedom and property", Jefferson urged Congressional leaders to begin impeachment hearings. Many Republicans felt that this accusation of sedition was too reminiscent of the Federalist Sedition Act that had been repealed early in Jefferson's presidency. Unwilling to remove a Supreme Court justice on purely political accusations, the Senate acquitted Chase of all charges in 1804. The case of Samuel Chase has been the only impeachment trial of a Supreme Court justice in United States history. By rebelling against Jefferson's wishes, the Republican Senators sent a message that the independence of the judiciary was not open to political manipulation.
I missed the part about the "activist judges" going beyond the intent of the Constitution.
Also, still struggling to understand what any of these American cases have to do with militant atheism in Canada?
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Well, nobody except for atheists and a panel of Court of Appeal judges I guess.
And I have no idea what point you are making re: rapists? Are you suggesting that opposing roadside crosses on public land is more morally culpable than rape? Really?
Read the title of this thread. A little tongue and cheek but, nobody(not even rapists) would have gone to court to stop this religious expression except atheists. It was a despictable move.
Read the title of this thread. A little tongue and cheek but, nobody(not even rapists) would have gone to court to stop this religious expression except atheists. It was a despictable move.
Despicable? What? The Court of Appeal said that they were correct.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Everywhere? Has an Atheist ever knocked on your door trying to spread his "word"? Do we have huge meeting places paid for by dummy's? NO, fact is most Atheists keep to themselfs until provoked.
Maybe you'll be more tolerant if you appreciate why they do it. Those folks believe it's their responsibility to go into the world and witness to unbelievers. Put it this way, if you knew something that you absolutely believed was true and that everyone would benefit (it is the most important thing ever), would you maybe want to tell others?
I don't like some of those faiths but when they come to my door I'm respectful as I thank them and close the door because I know why they're there. Try it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashpoint
Like a belief in the afterlife? Which encourages people to put off living because the promise of eternal relief later?
How so? The believers I know live life as fully as anyone. Just because we believe in an afterlife why does that preclude from living it up. This is totally false.
I haven't read every post carefully, but I haven't seen where anyone here has said they distrust athiests more than rapists. I think you're wrong, but think there are some very smart people here with great values in other ways. I don't distrust anyone because he/she is an athiest. Nor do I necessarily trust a Christian because of his/her faith.
Read the title of this thread. A little tongue and cheek but, nobody(not even rapists) would have gone to court to stop this religious expression except atheists. It was a despictable move.
atheists go to court for "small" issues like this because you have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. the US constitution is pretty clear when it comes to the seperation of church and state, if nobody stands up against small violations like this then you're just inviting more liberties to be taken by religious groups
and as for atheists being the only ones to protest, that's complete horse####. or have you forgotten about the mass hysteria started by various christian groups when someone wanted to build a mosque in New York?
The Following User Says Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
I don't like some of those faiths but when they come to my door I'm respectful as I thank them and close the door because I know why they're there. Try it.
I once soaked a couple of Mormon fellers with the garden hose. Boy, could they run!
__________________
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Here is a story about crosses being erected along public highways to remember fallen officers in Utah. They were paid for and errected with private money. The families of the officers had been asked and were in favour of the remembrance: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/18...osses-highway/
I can't build a shrine to the Calgary Flames on the side of the Trans-Canada either. That in no way prevents me from cheering for the team.
Putting a piece of private property on a public space isn't religious expression. It's a property rights issue.
How can you view that as preventing religious expression?
The Tebow situation clearly isn't prayer. It's dumb kids goofing off - like planking. Why would you even bring that up?
The others regarding valedictorian speeches are cases of a student inflicting their religious views on other students - they aren't prevented from practicing their faith. If she wanted to discuss it in an appropriate forum (after school group, or in a religious studies class), that's not a problem. But I don't want my kids being preached to.
If you want your children to be able to proselytize to other students, perhaps you should enroll them in a private religious school. The public system needs to remain homogeneous for everyone.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
Nobody but, an atheist would have a problem with this kind of religious expression on public land. I don't think even the rapists would.
I guess you don't have any Jewish friends?
j/k
I think we actually discussed this at the time in a thread on the topic. My fundamental takeaway on this issue was that most Canadians viewed a large cross as a memorial - whereas here in Texas, a large cross is almost universally symbolic of Christianity.
So the perspective of the viewer does matter. I tend to get a lot of Christian fundamentalism forced into my life (ironic in a State that executes so many people, but tries to treat abortion like murder), so I'm biased against any time it barges into my life (like a massive cross by the side of the road).
I'm not to interested in explaining to my 4 year old the concept of crucifixion. Torture and death are not learning tools IMO. Call me crazy.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
Unless your naive enough to believe that loitering by teenagers are uncommon in a school hallway you've got to see that what caused the overreaction was the fact they were praying.
I imagine that's why the media bothered to pick it up. They could sucker people into thinking it was a religious issue instead of a "dumb kid" issue.
It evidently worked on you!
No offense.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
I missed the part about the "activist judges" going beyond the intent of the Constitution.
The point is that Jefferson with the help of congress dealt with judges who he believed shouldn't be serving. Hopefully the next president will have the same courage.
The intent of the constitution was to prevent a State church rising at the federal level. Most of those 13 original colonies actually had state churches when they signed on. These were removed over time without court order because it was beyond the scope of the constitution to limit State activity. Some whinning atheists complaining about a few crosses being erected with private money would have been laughed out of court in those days.
Today liberals have filled the courts with activists who see the constitution as a document that needs to be changed to conform with their social agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Also, still struggling to understand what any of these American cases have to do with militant atheism in Canada?
We and this thread has been talking about North America. Canada has a State church .
No I would prefer Gingrinch's solution of bringing activist judges before Congress and if they are found to be going beyond the intent of the constitution get rid of them. Apparently Jefferson canned 18 of the 36 federal judges during his presidency.
Activist judges are the reason that blacks got out of segregated schools. I don't mind the law telling politicians that they're wrong - especially in the south. Now, protection from religious proselytizing is no civil rights movement, but it's nice to have the protection of the law when someone tries to promote their myths over science and reason.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
