NYC SCHOOLS, birth of christ not an historical event?

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#21 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:20 pm

azsnowman wrote:And YES......I'm a FIRM, VERY FIRM believer that prayer SHOULD be allowed in schools, don't like it??? Move to Iraq!

Dennis


AMEN TO THAT!!!
0 likes   

chadtm80

#22 Postby chadtm80 » Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:22 pm

Well they can seperate what ever they want to.. Jerk offs.. But they cant seperate GOD from ME.. But appearantly they are seperating themselves from Heaven..

Ive always supported Public schooling, but as Dustin gets older, I tend to lean more toward Private or home schooling.. Where Values are still allowed :roll:
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#23 Postby Stephanie » Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:36 pm

opera ghost wrote:
azsnowman wrote:And YES......I'm a FIRM, VERY FIRM believer that prayer SHOULD be allowed in schools, don't like it??? Move to Iraq!

Dennis


Why should I move to another country when the country I'm living in has laws that support my beliefs?

Oh, by the way rainstorm- the judicial branch cannot pass laws. Period. End of statement. They don't have the power. They can only interpret laws that have already been passed. Or rule on the constitutionality of the laws that have already been passed. They have the power of veto as a check and balance. Checks and balances that were clearly outlined in the constitution to prevent one person or faction from rising to power and taking over our country.


...but they do have the power to set a precedent for further rulings due to their interpretations. If someone would get the b**** and take a stand, we may actually see some changes.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#24 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Nov 12, 2003 8:01 pm

Chad and Jen... take it from experience and enroll Dustin in a private school. ;)
0 likes   

rainstorm

thats just the point

#25 Postby rainstorm » Wed Nov 12, 2003 8:57 pm

Stephanie wrote:
opera ghost wrote:
azsnowman wrote:And YES......I'm a FIRM, VERY FIRM believer that prayer SHOULD be allowed in schools, don't like it??? Move to Iraq!

Dennis


Why should I move to another country when the country I'm living in has laws that support my beliefs?

Oh, by the way rainstorm- the judicial branch cannot pass laws. Period. End of statement. They don't have the power. They can only interpret laws that have already been passed. Or rule on the constitutionality of the laws that have already been passed. They have the power of veto as a check and balance. Checks and balances that were clearly outlined in the constitution to prevent one person or faction from rising to power and taking over our country.


...but they do have the power to set a precedent for further rulings due to their interpretations. If someone would get the b**** and take a stand, we may actually see some changes.



liberals cant get laws passed to make us live like they want, but they can have their agenda imposed on us by the courts. its called liberal judicial activism
0 likes   

User avatar
azsnowman
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8591
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: Pinetop Arizona. Elevation 7102' (54 miles west of NM border)

#26 Postby azsnowman » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:01 pm

Opera Ghost......I've said a prayer for you just now, you claim to believe in the Father and Jesus, yet in your beliefs, you don't believe in prayer in school. Hmmm.....I don't understand OG!

Dennis
0 likes   

rainstorm

#27 Postby rainstorm » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:05 pm

one example of liberal judicial activism is right here.
nowhere in the constitution can you find the phrase
"separation of church and state". in fact, the founding fathers were clear in not separating relgion from public life. they were also clear that the state should not set up one STATE religion. the aclu and liberal activists are using the courts to wipe christianty from public life, something they can not do through the legislative process.
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#28 Postby Stephanie » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:05 pm

Both sides have an agenda. Depending on how you view the way things should be it can color the way you interpret a law.


Dennis - prayer in school is good but not everyone prays to the same God. I think that a moment of silence or prayer time should be/could be incorporated in the schools so those who want to pray to their God pray, or those that don't believe can just reflect. I think that should be a happy medium.
0 likes   

User avatar
azsnowman
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8591
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: Pinetop Arizona. Elevation 7102' (54 miles west of NM border)

#29 Postby azsnowman » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:09 pm

Hmmm.....just thought of something this very second, I was gonna post something else about this matter.......what do the letters in ACLU stand for?

Anti Christ!

Dennis
0 likes   

rainstorm

#30 Postby rainstorm » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:13 pm

anti christ liberal union!!



The U.S. Supreme Court's discovery this summer of a constitutional right to the enjoyment of sodomy can have surprised only the very, very easily surprised. Less surprised than most, we have to assume, was Robert H. Bork, who understands the high court's philosophical premises better than almost anyone else thinking and writing about the interplay of law and culture.
Mr. Bork has pretty well figured out what's coming at us down the pike whenever the court takes up a case involving claims to new rights. The middle-class majority, with its old-fashioned norms and moral commitments, is likely to get clobbered — for reasons similar to those adduced by the court majority in the sodomy case, Lawrence vs. Texas.
Just as Mr. Bork makes plain in this terse, telling literary assault on judicial imperialism, judges all over the Western world have joined the cultural war on the side of the left. They have indeed more than joined it. On particular fronts the courts have taken command. Judicial activism, on Mr. Bork's showing, has subverted the rule of law.
"If we do not understand the worldwide corruption of the judicial function," he writes, "we do not comprehend the full scope of the political revolution that is overtaking the West. The political revolution in Western nations is the gradual but unceasing replacement of government by elected officials with government by appointed judges . . .
"The political revolution brings with it a cultural revolution. In reading the opinions of many judges, it is apparent that they view their mission as preserving civilization from a barbarian majority motivated by bigotry, racism, sexism, xenophobia, irrational sexual morality, and the like." What the courts are substituting for old-fashioned moralities is "cultural socialism."
This is stout stuff, and the reader may rely on Mr. Bork — a trenchant, unsentimental analyst — to produce the evidence. Mr. Bork, who is presently an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow, delivered his manuscript prior to the court's June 2003 onslaught against opposition to gay rights and that which is pleasantly known as "affirmative action." If anything, the two cases render the appearance of "Coercing Virtue" all the more timely, as showing what the court was up to and how it happened.
His second chapter, on the growing tendency of American courts to reason from international law as well as the Constitution, has a terrible relevancy in the sodomy case. Writing for the majority in Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy — who ended up filling the vacant Supreme Court seat for which Mr. Bork was rejected — declared: "The right [that] petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries." As if international acceptance of a thing — any kind of thing — circumscribed the right of an American state to reach different conclusions.
Mr. Bork's chapter on international law, and the solicitude paid it by American judges, is perhaps the freshest, most interesting excursion on which he takes his readers (albeit he has addressed the matter before). His chapter on the Israeli Supreme Court's peculiarly advanced form of judicial imperialism is especially chilling. The court's philosophy, and that of its chief justice, Aharon Barak, Mr. Bork reports, is that "there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern." An acquiescent, or perhaps grievously distracted, citizenry lets the court get away with it.
Another country that comes in for rebuke is Canada. In the 20 years since our neighbor to the north adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Supreme Court has made judicial review a staple of its repertory.
Obviously this means making up for a lot of time, and that's happening. The Canadian Supreme Court, in abortion cases, has declined to extend to unborn life the charter's extensive — you might suppose — protections.
What Mr. Bork calls Canada's "judicial normalization of homosexuality" has proceeded in the manner it may proceed here in these post-Lawrence vs. Texas times. One Canadian Supreme Court justice had the nerve to assert that her tribunal, taking the slack left by "a general failure of the political process," found itself leading society toward recognition of same-sex partnerships. (And kindly don't step on our robe hems, you middle-class cave dwellers.)
Americans contemplating the post-Lawrence world will find "Coercing Virtue" about as timely as a book ever gets — and as alarming. Mr. Bork has no constitutional remedies to suggest. Except for the implied message to his intended and, one may hope, considerable audience: Wake up
0 likes   

rainstorm

#31 Postby rainstorm » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:13 pm

anti christ liberal union!!



The U.S. Supreme Court's discovery this summer of a constitutional right to the enjoyment of sodomy can have surprised only the very, very easily surprised. Less surprised than most, we have to assume, was Robert H. Bork, who understands the high court's philosophical premises better than almost anyone else thinking and writing about the interplay of law and culture.
Mr. Bork has pretty well figured out what's coming at us down the pike whenever the court takes up a case involving claims to new rights. The middle-class majority, with its old-fashioned norms and moral commitments, is likely to get clobbered — for reasons similar to those adduced by the court majority in the sodomy case, Lawrence vs. Texas.
Just as Mr. Bork makes plain in this terse, telling literary assault on judicial imperialism, judges all over the Western world have joined the cultural war on the side of the left. They have indeed more than joined it. On particular fronts the courts have taken command. Judicial activism, on Mr. Bork's showing, has subverted the rule of law.
"If we do not understand the worldwide corruption of the judicial function," he writes, "we do not comprehend the full scope of the political revolution that is overtaking the West. The political revolution in Western nations is the gradual but unceasing replacement of government by elected officials with government by appointed judges . . .
"The political revolution brings with it a cultural revolution. In reading the opinions of many judges, it is apparent that they view their mission as preserving civilization from a barbarian majority motivated by bigotry, racism, sexism, xenophobia, irrational sexual morality, and the like." What the courts are substituting for old-fashioned moralities is "cultural socialism."
This is stout stuff, and the reader may rely on Mr. Bork — a trenchant, unsentimental analyst — to produce the evidence. Mr. Bork, who is presently an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow, delivered his manuscript prior to the court's June 2003 onslaught against opposition to gay rights and that which is pleasantly known as "affirmative action." If anything, the two cases render the appearance of "Coercing Virtue" all the more timely, as showing what the court was up to and how it happened.
His second chapter, on the growing tendency of American courts to reason from international law as well as the Constitution, has a terrible relevancy in the sodomy case. Writing for the majority in Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy — who ended up filling the vacant Supreme Court seat for which Mr. Bork was rejected — declared: "The right [that] petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries." As if international acceptance of a thing — any kind of thing — circumscribed the right of an American state to reach different conclusions.
Mr. Bork's chapter on international law, and the solicitude paid it by American judges, is perhaps the freshest, most interesting excursion on which he takes his readers (albeit he has addressed the matter before). His chapter on the Israeli Supreme Court's peculiarly advanced form of judicial imperialism is especially chilling. The court's philosophy, and that of its chief justice, Aharon Barak, Mr. Bork reports, is that "there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern." An acquiescent, or perhaps grievously distracted, citizenry lets the court get away with it.
Another country that comes in for rebuke is Canada. In the 20 years since our neighbor to the north adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Supreme Court has made judicial review a staple of its repertory.
Obviously this means making up for a lot of time, and that's happening. The Canadian Supreme Court, in abortion cases, has declined to extend to unborn life the charter's extensive — you might suppose — protections.
What Mr. Bork calls Canada's "judicial normalization of homosexuality" has proceeded in the manner it may proceed here in these post-Lawrence vs. Texas times. One Canadian Supreme Court justice had the nerve to assert that her tribunal, taking the slack left by "a general failure of the political process," found itself leading society toward recognition of same-sex partnerships. (And kindly don't step on our robe hems, you middle-class cave dwellers.)
Americans contemplating the post-Lawrence world will find "Coercing Virtue" about as timely as a book ever gets — and as alarming. Mr. Bork has no constitutional remedies to suggest. Except for the implied message to his intended and, one may hope, considerable audience: Wake up
0 likes   

User avatar
Skywatch_NC
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10949
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:31 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

#32 Postby Skywatch_NC » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:18 pm

Chad and Jen, I attended a private school (jr high and high school years) and really loved the atmosphere there compared to public schools (where I had my grade school years)! :)

Eric
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#33 Postby Stephanie » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:19 pm

ACLU = American Civil Liberties Union.

Dennis - I'm surprised at you.

Helen - I really don't think we want to travel that road again...

It's kind of ironic that the ACLU is associated with 'liberals" while the "conservatives" are concerned with people losing their individual liberties.

Every organization, person tends to go to extremes with their beliefs, etc. and needs to be "reined in" after awhile.
0 likes   

rainstorm

activism

#34 Postby rainstorm » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:26 pm

Our founders designed a government with three independent branches, each with a limited role to play. The role of the judicial branch was limited to deciding "cases and controversies" in accordance with laws made by elected representatives of "We the People." As Alexander Hamilton explained the constitutional design in Federalist Number 78,

The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will but merely judgement; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgements.
Hamilton went on to assure his fellow citizens in Federalist Number 81 that they could rely on Congress to punish "judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority" by impeachment and removal of the encroaching judges.
There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted (sic) with it (the power of impeachment and removal), while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations.
Our founders depended on the integrity of future judges to restrain them from transgressing their constitutional limits. They depended on the integrity of future presidents to refuse to enforce fraudulent Supreme Court rulings. And they depended on the courage and integrity of future congressmen to impeach and remove renegade judges regardless of the partisan issues involved. Our founders were a bit too optimistic on all three counts. Fraudulent Supreme Court rulings often have a fair amount of support among political elites, so a political movement with sufficient strength to defy or punish them has rarely emerged.

The U. S. Supreme Court is constantly bombarded with requests to extend the law into uncharted territory; often the request is based on a novel, even preposterous, constitutional interpretation. Usually a Court majority cannot be found to go along; the justices do not want to take fresh liberties with the Constitution every day, and a majority does not often share a strong emotional commitment to the goals of whatever special interest group presented the request.

However, sometimes a creative plaintiff strikes pay dirt; a Court majority is willing to play ball, and an opinion comes down which asserts that the Constitution contains a previously undiscovered mandate. That opinion becomes a precedent for future cases in the Supreme Court and all lower courts. So it's tantamount to a constitutional amendment with no input from us or our elected representatives. It's popular among various elites to defend this process by claiming that we have a "living Constitution" which evolves to incorporate Supreme Court policy innovations.

It's undeniable that the Court has no legitimate power to revise the Constitution, although we do trust it to faithfully apply, to new situations, principles that "We the People" placed in that eminent document. That trust does not entitle the Court to hand down constitutional rulings that are driven by the justices' own biases, unsupported by the language of the Constitution, and clearly contrary to the intent of the people who framed, adopted, and ratified its various articles and amendments. God forbid that our original written Constitution has been replaced by a bogus one which "evolves" according to the policy preferences of our judicial employees.

Unfortunately, that's the way it really is. Nobody is in a position to keep the Court honest, so it "evolves" the Constitution at will. Unelected judges with lifetime appointments contrive to enact our most important laws, making a mockery of our constitutional guarantee of a "Republican Form of Government."
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

#35 Postby Stephanie » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:30 pm

Good post Helen!

It's truly amazing when you really think about it how well thought out our government and the Constitution really was by our founding fathers. I really can't imagine out of all the Senators and Congressmen that we have representing us right now could equal creating such a masterpiece!
Last edited by Stephanie on Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

rainstorm

no "separation of church and state"

#36 Postby rainstorm » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:34 pm

A Sympton of Liberal Judicial Insanity


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words "under God" is another symptom of the progressive, liberal judicial insanity that has been permeating our society since the 1960s. Our Constitution gives us freedom of worship, not proscription of religion. Thomas Jefferson warned us that judicial activism could lead to tyranny and chaos if unchecked. The chickens have come home to roost.

The U.S. Constitution establishes freedom of religion: "Congress should make no Law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," in the First Amendment.

Recognizing where this has led in other countries such as Cuba and the former Soviet Union, we have been proscribing religion from public places and society at large, including government (public) school. This separation of church and state has been taking place drastically since the 1960s, ironically at about the same time Fidel Castro was proscribing religion in Cuba. Cuba as an officially atheistic State, as might be expected, goes much further implementing tyranny without religion. Is that where we want to go?

Because of our jettisoning of our Judeo-Christian principles upon which this nation was founded, coupled with the growth of government in our private and public life, our children have suffered greatly and are growing up devoid of a moral compass.

People worry about children with guns, violence in schools, street crime, and wonder why we have so much of them, so much immorality, crime, broken families, etc. This disintegration of the moral foundation of our society has been the result of a series of rulings such as this. I would have thought this insanity would have been jolted out of the liberal mind of the cultural opinion molders in society after Sept. 11, but apparently it has not--judicial activism, political correctness, zero tolerance, and all the other nonsense we have inured for decades will continue.

One gleam of hope is that the 9th Circuit Court is not only the most left-wing but also the most overturned Appeals Court in the country. Let us hope the Supreme Court ends this nonsense and rules appropriately.

If not, there is a remedy: There is a clause in the Constitution that provides for Congress to remove the Judiciary from certain issues in which the courts have erred. Article III, Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court "should have appellate jurisdiction, to both Law and Fact with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress should make."

In other words, Congress can take issues away from courts as necessary to save the nation. I can think of no better time for Congress to do so with this insanity of complete "separation of church and state."
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#37 Postby GalvestonDuck » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:42 pm

For the record, Jefferson is the one who first coined the phrase "separation of church and state."
0 likes   

User avatar
coriolis
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 8314
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:58 pm
Location: Muncy, PA

#38 Postby coriolis » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:46 pm

I am wondering if Christians (myself included) are fighting the wrong battles. Isn't it a spiritual battle where we are to win over individuals?

I am aware of the wording of our founding documents, that acknowledged "providence." And that seems to be the basis for the cultural war that we are in. I don't think that the battles are to be won in the political arena. The battles are to be won in the hearts of individuals. The church has failed to lead and inspire individuals.

The "righteousness that exalts a nation" should be from the bottom up. It starts with individuals, living in the spiritual realm. If there was a true revival in this country, a lot of these problems would just fall by the wayside. Doesn't it say somewhere that the battle is in the spirit, not in the flesh?

It's easier to contribute money, wage letter writing campaigns, and make a lot of noise. After you do "your duty" you can go home and watch the latest reality tv shows. It's not so easy to live holy, lead by example, and truly change hearts. I am guilty of this, for sure. I guess that with conviction, comes responsibility.

That's how things will change!
0 likes   
This space for rent.

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#39 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:48 pm

The ACLU supposedly tries to quote the Constitution. Seperation of Church and State is not a direct quote from the Constitution, it is a phrase written by Thomas Jefferson in response to the Danbury Baptist Association, which was concerned that a particular denomination was about to be recognized as the national denomination.

And civil liberties for who? They have scouts out there just looking to have their names on the news and in the papers to further the attacks on Christians and Christian symbols. They are indeed un-American and anti-Christian. Better known as the anti-Christ
Last edited by Lindaloo on Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
streetsoldier
Retired Staff
Retired Staff
Posts: 9705
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Under the rainbow

#40 Postby streetsoldier » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:51 pm

Yes, and Jefferson did so in a LETTER (NOT a "constitutional" doctrine) to a small group of Baptist ministers who feared that Maryland, then heavily Catholic, might establish Roman Catholicism as its "state religion".

Jefferson's intent was to reassure them that no State, or Federal government, could ever encroach on anyone's walk in faith, and that the celebrated "separation of church and state" was a wall to PROTECT "the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" from any interference by any Government within the Federal Union...freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM it.

Pop quiz on Friday...bring your notes!
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests