Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Zepp
May 23, 2013, 7:23:22 PM5/23/13
to
http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-state-
separation-death-threats-murdered-pets-and?
akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death
Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
The religious right often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and
outright violence against First Amendment plaintiffs.
http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/
shutterstock_96065306.jpg
Photo Credit: JeremyWhat/ Shutterstock.com
May 6, 2013 |
When it comes to the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, which forbids
the establishment of a state religion by the government even if a
majority supports it, is something most of us heartedly support.
But not all. The religious right despises the First Amendment, since it's
constantly foiled their efforts to inject Christian doctrine into
government. And when they've lost in court, religious conservatives in
the U.S. have often waged campaigns of threats, harassment and outright
violence against First Amendment plaintiffs, in the hopes of intimidating
them into backing down and achieving by mob violence what they can't
achieve under the law.
Last year, the Freedom from Religion Foundation contacted two public
school districts in Pennsylvania, in New Kensington and Connellsville, to
demand the removal of large stone Ten Commandments monuments prominently
placed on school property. When the schools chose to fight, the FFRF and
its local plaintiffs, including current students, filed a lawsuit.
As often happens in these cases, FFRF plaintiffs asked to have their
identities concealed because they feared harassment and retaliation from
the community. It was a well-founded fear, since some of them had already
been receiving threats on social media. On a Facebook page supporting the
New Kensington school, one person encouraged others to "slam the shit out
of the bitch" who filed the lawsuit. Another commenter asked, "Have the
families involved in the lawsuit been identified? I cannot believe anyone
living in the community would participate in such a worthless cause.
Someone needs to send that group back to Wisconsin with several black
eyes!"
Because of threats like this, the court granted the request for
anonymity, finding that "this basis upon which the Does fear disclosure
is substantial and that there is a substantial public interest in
ensuring that litigants not face such retribution in their attempt to
seek redress for what they view as a Constitutional violation, a pure
legal issue." In response, Republican state representative Tim Krieger
filed a bill... that would eliminate the right of plaintiffs to sue
anonymously over religious symbols on public property.
Thankfully, Krieger's understanding of federalism is as abysmal as his
grasp of the Bill of Rights: the FFRF lawsuit was filed in federal court,
where state laws have no effect. Still, the ugly, bullying intent behind
his bill is obvious: the unsubtle hope is to encourage bullying and
retribution against First Amendment plaintiffs, to "punish" them for
standing up for the Constitution.
The story of high school activist Jessica Ahlquist, previously reported
by Greta Christina on AlterNet, is another example. After speaking out
against an illegal prayer banner in her public school (and winning in
court), Ahlquist received vivid, violent threats on social media, and
even in a handwritten letter. Some of the threats were so serious she was
temporarily given a police escort for protection.
These two stories are just the most recent and high-profile examples of
the kind of harassment and intimidation of church-state plaintiffs that's
been going on literally for decades. Countless other stories could be
cited, like these:
Darla Kay Wynne. A Wiccan living in the town of Great Falls, South
Carolina in 2004, Darla Kay Wynne was disturbed by sectarian Christian
prayers before town council meetings. On one occasion, when she
deliberately came late to avoid the prayer, she was denied the
opportunity to speak at the meeting even though she had previously signed
up to do so and was listed on the official agenda. When she asked for
members of other religions to have an opportunity to give the prayers,
that too was denied; the mayor, Henry Starnes, said, "This is the way
we've always done things and we're not going to change." When she refused
to stand for one of the prayers, several people told her she "wasn't
wanted" and "should leave town."
Wynne filed a lawsuit, Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, which she easily won
based on existing precedent. In response, as reported by a South Carolina
newspaper,The State, someone broke into her home and decapitated her pet
parrot, leaving a note next to the body that read, "You're next!" Several
of her cats were also killed, and her tiny Yorkshire terrier was beaten.
The Santa Fe Does. In 2000, in the case Santa Fe Independent School
District v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down student-selected, school-
endorsed prayer at high school football games in Santa Fe, Texas. As in
FFRF's Pennsylvania cases, the lower courts allowed the plaintiffs to
file anonymously to protect them from harassment. The wisdom of that
measure was soon demonstrated because employees of the school district
apparently spent considerable effort trying to figure out who the
plaintiffs were. The judge was forced to issue a further order,
threatening criminal contempt if there was "any further attempt on the
part of District or school administration... parents, students or anyone
else, overtly or covertly to ferret out the identities of the Plaintiffs
in this cause, by means of bogus petitions, questionnaires, individual
interrogation, or downright 'snooping.'"
The McCollums. Vashti McCollum, her husband John and her son Jim were at
the center of one of the earliest and most important First Amendment
cases of the 20th century: McCollum vs. Board of Education, a 1948
Supreme Court ruling striking down a "released-time" policy in Illinois
that allowed clergy to come to a public school to teach religious
education classes to students during the school day.
While the case was going on, the McCollum family was threatened and
ostracized by their community. They received harassing and threatening
messages, including one that read, "There is no room for you nor yours
here. God damn you sons and daughters of bitches.... If you think you can
boss us around What fun We are going to have." On one Halloween, a mob
broke into the house and threw rotten fruit and vegetables at the family.
Vashti was abruptly fired from her job as a phys-ed teacher at the
University of Illinois at Champaign. Jim McCollum and his brothers were
beaten up while going to and from school. Most shockingly, the McCollum
family's cat was lynched and hanged from a tree.
The Bells. In 1981, in the Oklahoma community of Little Axe, school
officials allowed a Baptist religious group, the Son Shine Club, to meet
in the school building before the start of the day. The buses dropped
students off at school 30 minutes before the start of class, and those
who didn't want to attend the religious meetings had to wait outside the
building, even if it was raining or freezing cold.
Joann Bell and another local parent, Lucille McCord, were both Christians
but of different denominations, and didn't want their children exposed to
Baptist preaching on school time. When they filed a lawsuit with the help
of the ACLU, Bell v. Little Axe, retribution was swift and vicious.
Joann Bell was assaulted by a school employee who smashed her head
repeatedly against a car door; he was only fined, and the community
rallied around him and raised money to pay the fine. The Bells' home was
burned to the ground; fire marshals ruled it to be arson, but no arrest
was ever made. McCord's son raised goats, which an unknown person slashed
and mutilated with a knife. Both of them received threatening letters,
including copies of their own obituaries. The Bells got a phone call from
someone who said he would break into Joann Bell's house, tie up her
children, rape her in front of them, and then "bring her to Jesus." The
local superintendent, Paul Pettigrew, said, "The only people who have
been hurt by this thing are the Bells and McCords... They chose to create
their own hell on earth."
Although most of these champions of the Constitution persevered through
harassment and threats, sadly, that isn't always the case. Sometimes the
persecution is too severe to bear, as in the case of the Dobriches, an
Orthodox Jewish family who filed a lawsuit in 2005 challenging pervasive
Christian influencein their Delaware school district, including
explicitly sectarian prayers at parent-teacher meetings and graduation
ceremonies, special privileges given to children in Christian clubs, and
Bibles handed out at elementary school.
When Mona Dobrich complained on behalf of her son, Alex, a group calling
itself the "Stop the ACLU Coalition" publicized the Dobriches' home
address and phone number, and they received so many threats, harassing
messages and anti-Semitic hate letters that they were essentially hounded
out of their community. They ended up moving to another county, and their
daughter had to drop out of Columbia University because of the financial
strain they were under.
Another church-state plaintiff driven out of her town was Melinda Maddox,
a Roman Catholic resident of Brewton, Alabama who joined in a 2001
lawsuit challenging theocratic judge Roy Moore's illegal placement of a
Ten Commandments monument in the state judicial building. During her
honeymoon, someone shot out the windows of her house; her car was
vandalized, and she received violent threats like "You should be hog-tied
and thrown in the Escambia River." Her parents, both of whom were
battling cancer, received threatening and harassing phone calls as well.
When she asked community leaders to condemn the threats, they instead
counseled her to drop out of the case. The strain destroyed her marriage
and her legal firm, forcing her to relocate to Mobile. In spite of this,
she says she would do it all over again.
Adam Lee is a writer and atheist activist living in New York City. Follow
him on Twitter, or subscribe to his blog, Daylight Atheism.
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
separation-death-threats-murdered-pets-and?
akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death
Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
The religious right often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and
outright violence against First Amendment plaintiffs.
http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/
shutterstock_96065306.jpg
Photo Credit: JeremyWhat/ Shutterstock.com
May 6, 2013 |
When it comes to the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, which forbids
the establishment of a state religion by the government even if a
majority supports it, is something most of us heartedly support.
But not all. The religious right despises the First Amendment, since it's
constantly foiled their efforts to inject Christian doctrine into
government. And when they've lost in court, religious conservatives in
the U.S. have often waged campaigns of threats, harassment and outright
violence against First Amendment plaintiffs, in the hopes of intimidating
them into backing down and achieving by mob violence what they can't
achieve under the law.
Last year, the Freedom from Religion Foundation contacted two public
school districts in Pennsylvania, in New Kensington and Connellsville, to
demand the removal of large stone Ten Commandments monuments prominently
placed on school property. When the schools chose to fight, the FFRF and
its local plaintiffs, including current students, filed a lawsuit.
As often happens in these cases, FFRF plaintiffs asked to have their
identities concealed because they feared harassment and retaliation from
the community. It was a well-founded fear, since some of them had already
been receiving threats on social media. On a Facebook page supporting the
New Kensington school, one person encouraged others to "slam the shit out
of the bitch" who filed the lawsuit. Another commenter asked, "Have the
families involved in the lawsuit been identified? I cannot believe anyone
living in the community would participate in such a worthless cause.
Someone needs to send that group back to Wisconsin with several black
eyes!"
Because of threats like this, the court granted the request for
anonymity, finding that "this basis upon which the Does fear disclosure
is substantial and that there is a substantial public interest in
ensuring that litigants not face such retribution in their attempt to
seek redress for what they view as a Constitutional violation, a pure
legal issue." In response, Republican state representative Tim Krieger
filed a bill... that would eliminate the right of plaintiffs to sue
anonymously over religious symbols on public property.
Thankfully, Krieger's understanding of federalism is as abysmal as his
grasp of the Bill of Rights: the FFRF lawsuit was filed in federal court,
where state laws have no effect. Still, the ugly, bullying intent behind
his bill is obvious: the unsubtle hope is to encourage bullying and
retribution against First Amendment plaintiffs, to "punish" them for
standing up for the Constitution.
The story of high school activist Jessica Ahlquist, previously reported
by Greta Christina on AlterNet, is another example. After speaking out
against an illegal prayer banner in her public school (and winning in
court), Ahlquist received vivid, violent threats on social media, and
even in a handwritten letter. Some of the threats were so serious she was
temporarily given a police escort for protection.
These two stories are just the most recent and high-profile examples of
the kind of harassment and intimidation of church-state plaintiffs that's
been going on literally for decades. Countless other stories could be
cited, like these:
Darla Kay Wynne. A Wiccan living in the town of Great Falls, South
Carolina in 2004, Darla Kay Wynne was disturbed by sectarian Christian
prayers before town council meetings. On one occasion, when she
deliberately came late to avoid the prayer, she was denied the
opportunity to speak at the meeting even though she had previously signed
up to do so and was listed on the official agenda. When she asked for
members of other religions to have an opportunity to give the prayers,
that too was denied; the mayor, Henry Starnes, said, "This is the way
we've always done things and we're not going to change." When she refused
to stand for one of the prayers, several people told her she "wasn't
wanted" and "should leave town."
Wynne filed a lawsuit, Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, which she easily won
based on existing precedent. In response, as reported by a South Carolina
newspaper,The State, someone broke into her home and decapitated her pet
parrot, leaving a note next to the body that read, "You're next!" Several
of her cats were also killed, and her tiny Yorkshire terrier was beaten.
The Santa Fe Does. In 2000, in the case Santa Fe Independent School
District v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down student-selected, school-
endorsed prayer at high school football games in Santa Fe, Texas. As in
FFRF's Pennsylvania cases, the lower courts allowed the plaintiffs to
file anonymously to protect them from harassment. The wisdom of that
measure was soon demonstrated because employees of the school district
apparently spent considerable effort trying to figure out who the
plaintiffs were. The judge was forced to issue a further order,
threatening criminal contempt if there was "any further attempt on the
part of District or school administration... parents, students or anyone
else, overtly or covertly to ferret out the identities of the Plaintiffs
in this cause, by means of bogus petitions, questionnaires, individual
interrogation, or downright 'snooping.'"
The McCollums. Vashti McCollum, her husband John and her son Jim were at
the center of one of the earliest and most important First Amendment
cases of the 20th century: McCollum vs. Board of Education, a 1948
Supreme Court ruling striking down a "released-time" policy in Illinois
that allowed clergy to come to a public school to teach religious
education classes to students during the school day.
While the case was going on, the McCollum family was threatened and
ostracized by their community. They received harassing and threatening
messages, including one that read, "There is no room for you nor yours
here. God damn you sons and daughters of bitches.... If you think you can
boss us around What fun We are going to have." On one Halloween, a mob
broke into the house and threw rotten fruit and vegetables at the family.
Vashti was abruptly fired from her job as a phys-ed teacher at the
University of Illinois at Champaign. Jim McCollum and his brothers were
beaten up while going to and from school. Most shockingly, the McCollum
family's cat was lynched and hanged from a tree.
The Bells. In 1981, in the Oklahoma community of Little Axe, school
officials allowed a Baptist religious group, the Son Shine Club, to meet
in the school building before the start of the day. The buses dropped
students off at school 30 minutes before the start of class, and those
who didn't want to attend the religious meetings had to wait outside the
building, even if it was raining or freezing cold.
Joann Bell and another local parent, Lucille McCord, were both Christians
but of different denominations, and didn't want their children exposed to
Baptist preaching on school time. When they filed a lawsuit with the help
of the ACLU, Bell v. Little Axe, retribution was swift and vicious.
Joann Bell was assaulted by a school employee who smashed her head
repeatedly against a car door; he was only fined, and the community
rallied around him and raised money to pay the fine. The Bells' home was
burned to the ground; fire marshals ruled it to be arson, but no arrest
was ever made. McCord's son raised goats, which an unknown person slashed
and mutilated with a knife. Both of them received threatening letters,
including copies of their own obituaries. The Bells got a phone call from
someone who said he would break into Joann Bell's house, tie up her
children, rape her in front of them, and then "bring her to Jesus." The
local superintendent, Paul Pettigrew, said, "The only people who have
been hurt by this thing are the Bells and McCords... They chose to create
their own hell on earth."
Although most of these champions of the Constitution persevered through
harassment and threats, sadly, that isn't always the case. Sometimes the
persecution is too severe to bear, as in the case of the Dobriches, an
Orthodox Jewish family who filed a lawsuit in 2005 challenging pervasive
Christian influencein their Delaware school district, including
explicitly sectarian prayers at parent-teacher meetings and graduation
ceremonies, special privileges given to children in Christian clubs, and
Bibles handed out at elementary school.
When Mona Dobrich complained on behalf of her son, Alex, a group calling
itself the "Stop the ACLU Coalition" publicized the Dobriches' home
address and phone number, and they received so many threats, harassing
messages and anti-Semitic hate letters that they were essentially hounded
out of their community. They ended up moving to another county, and their
daughter had to drop out of Columbia University because of the financial
strain they were under.
Another church-state plaintiff driven out of her town was Melinda Maddox,
a Roman Catholic resident of Brewton, Alabama who joined in a 2001
lawsuit challenging theocratic judge Roy Moore's illegal placement of a
Ten Commandments monument in the state judicial building. During her
honeymoon, someone shot out the windows of her house; her car was
vandalized, and she received violent threats like "You should be hog-tied
and thrown in the Escambia River." Her parents, both of whom were
battling cancer, received threatening and harassing phone calls as well.
When she asked community leaders to condemn the threats, they instead
counseled her to drop out of the case. The strain destroyed her marriage
and her legal firm, forcing her to relocate to Mobile. In spite of this,
she says she would do it all over again.
Adam Lee is a writer and atheist activist living in New York City. Follow
him on Twitter, or subscribe to his blog, Daylight Atheism.
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Hell Stomper
May 23, 2013, 9:36:25 PM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 7:23 pm, Zepp <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-s...
> zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:
> zepps_essays-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
cannot be trusted.
> http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-s...
> zepps_news-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:
> zepps_essays-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Bullshit lib propaganda. The left has proven over and over that they
> Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
cannot be trusted.
Steve
May 23, 2013, 9:44:19 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:23:22 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-state-
>separation-death-threats-murdered-pets-and?
>akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
>
>
<LOL> @ Leftist propaganda
>http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-state-
>separation-death-threats-murdered-pets-and?
>akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
>
>
<LOL> @ Leftist propaganda
David Hartung
May 23, 2013, 10:53:37 PM5/23/13
to
On 05/23/2013 06:23 PM, Zepp wrote:
> http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-state-
> separation-death-threats-murdered-pets-and?
> akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
>
>
>
> Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death
> Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
>
> The religious right often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and
> outright violence against First Amendment plaintiffs.
Not sure of your point here. It is a political reality that the group
> http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-state-
> separation-death-threats-murdered-pets-and?
> akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
>
>
>
> Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death
> Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
>
> The religious right often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and
> outright violence against First Amendment plaintiffs.
which has the power of the majority will often wield that power
inappropriately. This is true for atheists as well as conservative
Christians. The constant filing of suits to remove all public expression
of Christianity is proof of that.
This is in addition to the fact that Alternet is no more a credible
source of news than is WND.
wy
May 23, 2013, 11:00:25 PM5/23/13
to
> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-s...
vivid right wingnut imagination?
> > separation-death-threats-murdered-pets-and?
> > akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
>
> > Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death
> > Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
>
> > The religious right often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and
> > outright violence against First Amendment plaintiffs.
>
> Not sure of your point here. It is a political reality that the group
> which has the power of the majority will often wield that power
> inappropriately. This is true for atheists as well as conservative
> Christians. The constant filing of suits to remove all public expression
> of Christianity is proof of that.
>
> This is in addition to the fact that Alternet is no more a credible
> source of news than is WND.
Gee, nothing is credible to Hartung, except... Except what? His own
> > akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
>
> > Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death
> > Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
>
> > The religious right often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and
> > outright violence against First Amendment plaintiffs.
>
> Not sure of your point here. It is a political reality that the group
> which has the power of the majority will often wield that power
> inappropriately. This is true for atheists as well as conservative
> Christians. The constant filing of suits to remove all public expression
> of Christianity is proof of that.
>
> This is in addition to the fact that Alternet is no more a credible
> source of news than is WND.
vivid right wingnut imagination?
Sid9
May 23, 2013, 11:34:19 PM5/23/13
to
"David Hartung" <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote in message
news:vK2dnXx_BYysSwPM...@giganews.com...
.
"...all public expression of Christianity is proof of that."
Another Hartung LIE!
He's a straight out liar
...or...
He's so stupid he does not understand what he wrote.
....or....
BOTH!
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 1:20:36 AM5/24/13
to
the article.
Buncy
May 24, 2013, 5:01:11 AM5/24/13
to
On May 23, 10:53 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 06:23 PM, Zepp wrote:
>
> >http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-s...
> On 05/23/2013 06:23 PM, Zepp wrote:
>
> > separation-death-threats-murdered-pets-and?
> > akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
>
> > Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death
> > Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
>
> > The religious right often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and
> > outright violence against First Amendment plaintiffs.
>
> Not sure of your point here. It is a political reality that the group
> which has the power of the majority will often wield that power
> inappropriately. This is true for atheists as well as conservative
> Christians. The constant filing of suits to remove all public expression
> of Christianity is proof of that.
>
> This is in addition to the fact that Alternet is no more a credible
> source of news than is WND.
There is no law forbidding public expression of Christianity. There
> > akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
>
> > Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death
> > Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
>
> > The religious right often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and
> > outright violence against First Amendment plaintiffs.
>
> Not sure of your point here. It is a political reality that the group
> which has the power of the majority will often wield that power
> inappropriately. This is true for atheists as well as conservative
> Christians. The constant filing of suits to remove all public expression
> of Christianity is proof of that.
>
> This is in addition to the fact that Alternet is no more a credible
> source of news than is WND.
is plenty of law, however, which prohibits the state, or state
agencies, promoting Christianity. You should read it sometime. It's
called the Establishment Clause.
Buncy
May 24, 2013, 5:22:20 AM5/24/13
to
You could bring Christianity back into the schools, as Judge Moore
and
Fob James did in Alabama. Here's a true story about it:
The Willises moved to Troy, Alabama after meeting each other and
falling in love while they served Uncle Sam overseas. They put up a
double-wide and had a child, which made four children, all Jews
nurtured in the Jewish faith.
When Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated, two of the youngsters wore
their yarmulkes to school. The "Christian" kids beat one of them
almost senseless, and the other one's yarmulke was thrown in the
dumpster, where he had to crawl over rotted food to retrieve it.
While the children were in their bunks asleep their mother, who had
been raised a Jew on a Kentucky farm, washed swastikas out of her
children's clothes. The Willis children were forbidden to wear the
Star of David to school because the principal said it was a
"prohibited gang symbol." The "Christian" children contantly taunted
them and called them "dirty Jews."
One child's teacher forced him to write an essay titled, "Why Jesus
Loves Me." When another Willis child didn't bow his head for
Christian prayers at a school recital, the teacher shoved his head
down for him, as Mrs. Willis watched.
Mrs. Willis complained repeatedly at school about the harassment, but
the principal suggested the Willises move away. As time went on he
told her that "If y'all would just convert to Christianity, we
wouldn't be having these problems, now would we?" The Willises can't
leave Troy, Alabama. They don't have the money. They decided not to
try to move the double-wide to Kentucky; it would cost almost $6,000.
The Supreme Court ruled in _Engle v. Vitale_ (1962) that
school-sponsored prayers violated the separation clause of the First
Amendment, yet in 1998, Alabama believes _Engle v. Vitale_ does not
apply in that state. So said Fob James. And the Willis children who
have little choice being Jews must suffer for it. One of the boys
wanted to grow up to become a Rabbi, but he has changed his mind. He
doesn't do all that well in school any more. Many Alabamans don't.
One out of three is functionally illiterate.
__________________________________________
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means
at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious
beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax
in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious
activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever
form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor
the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In
the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion
by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and
State.'"
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in Everson vs. Board of Education,
330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
and
Fob James did in Alabama. Here's a true story about it:
The Willises moved to Troy, Alabama after meeting each other and
falling in love while they served Uncle Sam overseas. They put up a
double-wide and had a child, which made four children, all Jews
nurtured in the Jewish faith.
When Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated, two of the youngsters wore
their yarmulkes to school. The "Christian" kids beat one of them
almost senseless, and the other one's yarmulke was thrown in the
dumpster, where he had to crawl over rotted food to retrieve it.
While the children were in their bunks asleep their mother, who had
been raised a Jew on a Kentucky farm, washed swastikas out of her
children's clothes. The Willis children were forbidden to wear the
Star of David to school because the principal said it was a
"prohibited gang symbol." The "Christian" children contantly taunted
them and called them "dirty Jews."
One child's teacher forced him to write an essay titled, "Why Jesus
Loves Me." When another Willis child didn't bow his head for
Christian prayers at a school recital, the teacher shoved his head
down for him, as Mrs. Willis watched.
Mrs. Willis complained repeatedly at school about the harassment, but
the principal suggested the Willises move away. As time went on he
told her that "If y'all would just convert to Christianity, we
wouldn't be having these problems, now would we?" The Willises can't
leave Troy, Alabama. They don't have the money. They decided not to
try to move the double-wide to Kentucky; it would cost almost $6,000.
The Supreme Court ruled in _Engle v. Vitale_ (1962) that
school-sponsored prayers violated the separation clause of the First
Amendment, yet in 1998, Alabama believes _Engle v. Vitale_ does not
apply in that state. So said Fob James. And the Willis children who
have little choice being Jews must suffer for it. One of the boys
wanted to grow up to become a Rabbi, but he has changed his mind. He
doesn't do all that well in school any more. Many Alabamans don't.
One out of three is functionally illiterate.
__________________________________________
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means
at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious
beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax
in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious
activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever
form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor
the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In
the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion
by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and
State.'"
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in Everson vs. Board of Education,
330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 5:59:09 AM5/24/13
to
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 6:02:58 AM5/24/13
to
instances in which society's scum do the things that your article
claims. At the same time I recognize that Alternet is one of those rags
which can be counted on to twist and misstate things in orfer to stir up
people such as you. I have no doubt that there have been cases in which
the "Christian" folk have stepped out of line, just as I have no doubt
that the anti-religion people do so na regular basis.
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 6:30:37 AM5/24/13
to
Christianity"?
he words of the Constitution go like this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now, if we operate under the assumption that "words mean things", this
clause says that the government may not set one religion over the others
as a state faith, such as England has done with the Anglican faith,
Norway with the Lutheran Church and Saudi Arabia with Islam.
"Promoting" is not the same as "establishing". To post religious
material such as the Ten Commandments on the wall of a school is not
"establishing" any faith. Such action may not be the wisest thing to do,
but it is not unconstitutional. What is, unconstitutional, is for the
government to require people to take part in religious observations. For
example, the same public school which may have a copy of the Ten
Commandments displayed on the wall, may not require the students to
participate in a commemoration of the Day of Pentecost.
However, if a student's religious faith prohibits him from taking part
in the Pledge to the flag, the school may not force him to participate.
This is because the same Constitution which prohibits the government
from establishing a state religion, also protects the right of citizens
to freely exercise their faith. This is why the government has not legal
authority to force employer to buy into government insurance which
covers acts that business owner believes to be wrong.
For the record, I have come to believe that in many cases the insistence
on conservative Christians in doing things such as posting the Ten
Commandments in the schools, is for no other reason than to be "in your
face" about the issue of religious liberty. I am not at all certain that
it is wise.
wy
May 24, 2013, 10:04:31 AM5/24/13
to
getting worse. Alzheimer's.
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 10:30:09 AM5/24/13
to
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 10:46:30 AM5/24/13
to
Soon as you hear about Christian kids getting beaten up at school by
roving packs of atheists, you let us know, y'hear?
Lee
May 24, 2013, 11:44:15 AM5/24/13
to
David Hartung wrote:
>
> However, if a student's religious faith prohibits him from taking
> part in the Pledge to the flag, the school may not force him to
> participate. This is because the same Constitution which prohibits
> the government from establishing a state religion, also protects the
> right of citizens to freely exercise their faith. This is why the
> government has not legal authority to force employer to buy into
> government insurance which covers acts that business owner believes
> to be wrong.
Could a business owner refuse to provide any
>
> However, if a student's religious faith prohibits him from taking
> part in the Pledge to the flag, the school may not force him to
> participate. This is because the same Constitution which prohibits
> the government from establishing a state religion, also protects the
> right of citizens to freely exercise their faith. This is why the
> government has not legal authority to force employer to buy into
> government insurance which covers acts that business owner believes
> to be wrong.
medical insurance for his workers by claiming it
violates his faith as a Christian Scientist?
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 11:51:48 AM5/24/13
to
wy
May 24, 2013, 11:59:55 AM5/24/13
to
bastardized offshoots of real Christians. And in the beginning, there
were the Originals. Then some looney tune came along and decided that
the Originals didn't know what they were talking about so he made up
some shit and named a religion after himself. Hartung's religion is
named after a stupid human, Luther, not any God.
Lee
May 24, 2013, 12:44:38 PM5/24/13
to
rampant anti-semitism, but how any woman can belong
to faith started by someone so misogynist is beyond
me.
Lee
May 24, 2013, 12:53:19 PM5/24/13
to
because of their boss's religious beliefs?
Good thing the law prevent that.......
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 1:25:27 PM5/24/13
to
On 05/24/2013 11:53 AM, Lee wrote:
> David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 05/24/2013 10:44 AM, Lee wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, if a student's religious faith prohibits him from taking
>>>> part in the Pledge to the flag, the school may not force him to
>>>> participate. This is because the same Constitution which prohibits
>>>> the government from establishing a state religion, also protects
>>>> the right of citizens to freely exercise their faith. This is why
>>>> the government has not legal authority to force employer to buy
>>>> into government insurance which covers acts that business owner
>>>> believes to be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> Could a business owner refuse to provide any
>>> medical insurance for his workers by claiming it
>>> violates his faith as a Christian Scientist?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> I see. Workers should be left in the lurch
> because of their boss's religious beliefs?
Obviously you do not.
> David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 05/24/2013 10:44 AM, Lee wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, if a student's religious faith prohibits him from taking
>>>> part in the Pledge to the flag, the school may not force him to
>>>> participate. This is because the same Constitution which prohibits
>>>> the government from establishing a state religion, also protects
>>>> the right of citizens to freely exercise their faith. This is why
>>>> the government has not legal authority to force employer to buy
>>>> into government insurance which covers acts that business owner
>>>> believes to be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> Could a business owner refuse to provide any
>>> medical insurance for his workers by claiming it
>>> violates his faith as a Christian Scientist?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> I see. Workers should be left in the lurch
> because of their boss's religious beliefs?
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 1:27:49 PM5/24/13
to
On 05/24/2013 11:53 AM, Lee wrote:
> I see. Workers should be left in the lurch
> because of their boss's religious beliefs?
>
> Good thing the law prevent that.......
>
> http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
How does this support your claim?
> because of their boss's religious beliefs?
>
> Good thing the law prevent that.......
>
> http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 1:30:44 PM5/24/13
to
one little bit.
wy
May 24, 2013, 1:46:52 PM5/24/13
to
apostles seemed to have had wives. And Jesus always seemed to hang
around with them, very seldom with women. What's up with that? I
know if I were Jesus, I wouldn't be wasting my time hanging around
with a dozen guys, gimme the babes. Maybe our esteemed, learned
Preacher Man Hartung can enlighten us as to the nature of this
curiosity.
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 2:03:24 PM5/24/13
to
Lee
May 24, 2013, 2:14:06 PM5/24/13
to
that workers can be denied medical treatment if it
is against their employer's religion. The above cite
shows that is illegal.
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 2:14:52 PM5/24/13
to
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 2:21:38 PM5/24/13
to
his employee because of the employee' religion. It doe not say that he
must violate his own religious beliefs by offering that which he
believes to be sinful.
Lee
May 24, 2013, 3:34:51 PM5/24/13
to
that employers over 50 people carry insurance on their
workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/health/employers-must-offer-family-hea
lth-care-affordable-or-not-administration-says.html?_r=0
Sid9
May 24, 2013, 3:41:25 PM5/24/13
to
"Zepp" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message news:knoa1c$bir$7...@dont-email.me...
from your job.
Many stay at shitty jobs for decent health care.
Under Obamacare, employers will pay a tax and employees will buy health
insurance from the insurance exchanges.
Their health care, the kind and amount they purchase, becomes their choice
and not their employers.
The church/state issue becomes moot.
Another good feature of Obamacare!
Lee
May 24, 2013, 3:43:17 PM5/24/13
to
on employers with more than 10 full-time employees that
fail to offer an insurance plan to employees."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform
Sid9
May 24, 2013, 3:54:17 PM5/24/13
to
"Lee" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:-eidnW0Mpe5IXwLM...@giganews.com...
likely than not, will pay the penalty tax which may be cheaper than the
insurance.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sid9
May 24, 2013, 4:34:11 PM5/24/13
to
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:blivp8po31uvfeama...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:14:52 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> So employees have no rights at all, right?
>>
>>When did health care paid for by someone else, become a right?
>
> Law.
> wrote:
>
>>> So employees have no rights at all, right?
>>
>>When did health care paid for by someone else, become a right?
>
>
> The state cannot refuse to give HC for any reason.
>
> Those who cannot pay----get treatment
>
> The federal government reimburses states for that care.
>
> The federal govt does so by taxes--(meaning yours)
>
> The "REFORM" is to have EVERYONE have some kind of HC so that YOU
> don't have to pay as much.
>
> Further----we live in a SOCIETY
>
> Health care is a SOCIAL PROBLEM and as such, the government MUST
> address that problem ....by Law.
>
> (You don't seem to digest any of the issue at all, Hartung)
>
> More to the point
>
> YOU (yes, you) are PAYING Right now for "others care"
>
> Better them pay "Some" than you pay "all"
>
> RIGHT?
He will not understand.
He'll get his "Socialism" stamp out and stamp your post twice
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 4:39:28 PM5/24/13
to
blood transfusions, or emergency medical care during pregnancy on the
grounds that it could result in abortion?
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 4:42:11 PM5/24/13
to
roles in health care, and have a people's collective insurance, aka
single-payer. Do you agree?
wy
May 24, 2013, 4:52:39 PM5/24/13
to
religious wacko business employers and the private sector in general
and have it become a single payer system. In Canada, it's largely a
single payer system but private insurance is allowable for perks or
additional benefits, or coverage that the government system doesn't
offer, usually due to untested procedures. This way, religion never
becomes an issue for anyone. Man, these religious wackos think they
run the world by telling others what they can or can't do or have,
just because they've got high-and-mighty religion and you don't and
that makes them holier and more important than thou. Talk about a
superiority complex.
Steve
May 24, 2013, 4:55:36 PM5/24/13
to
health care for losers like himself.
Sid9
May 24, 2013, 5:03:11 PM5/24/13
to
"Zepp" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message news:knoj60$bir$1...@dont-email.me...
.
Obamacare is a weak effort to separate a worker's job from his healthcare.
It is believed that many hang on to jobs they would otherwise quit, except
for the health insurance.
Single payer or Medicare for all would have accomplished it much more
quickly and cleanly but we're not there yet.
Most other modern industrial nations have been there for years.
Buncy
May 24, 2013, 5:03:48 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 4:16 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> Southern Baptists still believe the old testament views of women's
> "place".
It's in the New Testament too. And the Catholic New Testament. And
in the Apocrypha.
Even in the New Testament the woman is to keep her mouth shut and be a
helpmate and chattel to her husband. The Gospels and the writings of
the Apostle Paul are full of that misogyny.
Now, Gary, ironically what we're dealing with in the laws of the
states are a sort of reverse discrimination, from the VAWA and its
progeny in the states, called misandry. I have been hit right
squarely in the head and bitten from behind with it and never would
have believed it could happen until it "snuck" up on me.
buncyblawg.com
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:44:38 -0500, "Lee" <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can understand (but not agree with) Luther's
> >rampant anti-semitism, but how any woman can belong
> >to faith started by someone so misogynist is beyond
> >me.
>
> Normal thinking in that era.
>
> > I can understand (but not agree with) Luther's
> >rampant anti-semitism, but how any woman can belong
> >to faith started by someone so misogynist is beyond
> >me.
>
>
> Southern Baptists still believe the old testament views of women's
> "place".
It's in the New Testament too. And the Catholic New Testament. And
in the Apocrypha.
Even in the New Testament the woman is to keep her mouth shut and be a
helpmate and chattel to her husband. The Gospels and the writings of
the Apostle Paul are full of that misogyny.
Now, Gary, ironically what we're dealing with in the laws of the
states are a sort of reverse discrimination, from the VAWA and its
progeny in the states, called misandry. I have been hit right
squarely in the head and bitten from behind with it and never would
have believed it could happen until it "snuck" up on me.
buncyblawg.com
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 5:01:00 PM5/24/13
to
don't really know: the gospels were all written at least seventy years
after the events were supposed to have taken place, and gone through
substantial revisions since then (the very earliest ones didn't have
Jesus returning from the dead, for example). Paul may have deleted
references to women other than the two Marys, mother and whore, but
nobody knows for sure.
Sid9
May 24, 2013, 5:10:43 PM5/24/13
to
"Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
news:upkvp8p8g3d2iipjk...@4ax.com...
.
.
Single payer or Medicare for all (not free) is used in most modern
industrial countries for years and years.
Only Americans are locked to employers, bad or good, by health insurance.
PS health insurance companies provide no health care. Obama care has
remedied that. They must spend 85% of your premium for health care.
Buncy
May 24, 2013, 5:13:45 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 6:30 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> Christianity"?
> he words of the Constitution go like this:
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
>
> Now, if we operate under the assumption that "words mean things", this
> clause says that the government may not set one religion over the others
> as a state faith, such as England has done with the Anglican faith,
> Norway with the Lutheran Church and Saudi Arabia with Islam.
The caselaw, beginning with Engel vs Vitale and Everson vs Board of
Education goes much further than that. Jefferson's "Wall of
Separation" letter to the Baptists at Danbury means much more than
that, and if you stick with your interpretation of the Establishment
Clause is merely forbidding an official religion, you would be wrong.
Jeez, David, aren't you from Alabama where Judge Moore was shut down,
and essentially defrocked, for trying to erect that hokey Ten
Commandments monument on Alabama's Supreme Court grounds?
>
> "Promoting" is not the same as "establishing". To post religious
> material such as the Ten Commandments on the wall of a school is not
> "establishing" any faith.
You're not up on the caselaw, David. Read that Texas case, _Santa Fe
Independent School District vs Roe._ Use of state resources or state
actors attempting to promote religion of any kind is illegal. It
violates the Establishment Clause, while you're still stuck in the
discredited approach of such revisionists of David Barton and his
followers.
Such action may not be the wisest thing to do,
> but it is not unconstitutional. What is, unconstitutional, is for the
> government to require people to take part in religious observations. For
> example, the same public school which may have a copy of the Ten
> Commandments displayed on the wall, may not require the students to
> participate in a commemoration of the Day of Pentecost.
> on conservative Christians in doing things such as posting the Ten
> Commandments in the schools, is for no other reason than to be "in your
> face" about the issue of religious liberty. I am not at all certain that
> it is wise.
> On 05/24/2013 04:01 AM, Buncy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 10:53 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/23/2013 06:23 PM, Zepp wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-s...
> >>> separation-death-threats-murdered-pets-and?
> >>> akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
>
> >>> Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death
> >>> Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
>
> >>> The religious right often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and
> >>> outright violence against First Amendment plaintiffs.
>
> >> Not sure of your point here. It is a political reality that the group
> >> which has the power of the majority will often wield that power
> >> inappropriately. This is true for atheists as well as conservative
> >> Christians. The constant filing of suits to remove all public expression
> >> of Christianity is proof of that.
>
> >> This is in addition to the fact that Alternet is no more a credible
> >> source of news than is WND.
>
> > There is no law forbidding public expression of Christianity. There
> > is plenty of law, however, which prohibits the state, or state
> > agencies, promoting Christianity. You should read it sometime. It's
> > called the Establishment Clause.
>
> No law forbidding the "public expression" of Christianity? "Promoting
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 10:53 pm, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/23/2013 06:23 PM, Zepp wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.alternet.org/belief/outrageous-attacks-supporters-church-s...
> >>> separation-death-threats-murdered-pets-and?
> >>> akid=10456.260753.buXpJG&rd=1&src=newsletter842428&t=5&paging=off
>
> >>> Outrageous Attacks on Supporters of Church-State Separation: Death
> >>> Threats, Murdered Pets, and Vandalized Property
>
> >>> The religious right often wages campaigns of harassment, intimidation and
> >>> outright violence against First Amendment plaintiffs.
>
> >> Not sure of your point here. It is a political reality that the group
> >> which has the power of the majority will often wield that power
> >> inappropriately. This is true for atheists as well as conservative
> >> Christians. The constant filing of suits to remove all public expression
> >> of Christianity is proof of that.
>
> >> This is in addition to the fact that Alternet is no more a credible
> >> source of news than is WND.
>
> > There is no law forbidding public expression of Christianity. There
> > is plenty of law, however, which prohibits the state, or state
> > agencies, promoting Christianity. You should read it sometime. It's
> > called the Establishment Clause.
>
> Christianity"?
> he words of the Constitution go like this:
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
>
> Now, if we operate under the assumption that "words mean things", this
> clause says that the government may not set one religion over the others
> as a state faith, such as England has done with the Anglican faith,
> Norway with the Lutheran Church and Saudi Arabia with Islam.
The caselaw, beginning with Engel vs Vitale and Everson vs Board of
Education goes much further than that. Jefferson's "Wall of
Separation" letter to the Baptists at Danbury means much more than
that, and if you stick with your interpretation of the Establishment
Clause is merely forbidding an official religion, you would be wrong.
Jeez, David, aren't you from Alabama where Judge Moore was shut down,
and essentially defrocked, for trying to erect that hokey Ten
Commandments monument on Alabama's Supreme Court grounds?
>
> "Promoting" is not the same as "establishing". To post religious
> material such as the Ten Commandments on the wall of a school is not
> "establishing" any faith.
You're not up on the caselaw, David. Read that Texas case, _Santa Fe
Independent School District vs Roe._ Use of state resources or state
actors attempting to promote religion of any kind is illegal. It
violates the Establishment Clause, while you're still stuck in the
discredited approach of such revisionists of David Barton and his
followers.
Such action may not be the wisest thing to do,
> but it is not unconstitutional. What is, unconstitutional, is for the
> government to require people to take part in religious observations. For
> example, the same public school which may have a copy of the Ten
> Commandments displayed on the wall, may not require the students to
> participate in a commemoration of the Day of Pentecost.
>
> However, if a student's religious faith prohibits him from taking part
> in the Pledge to the flag, the school may not force him to participate.
> This is because the same Constitution which prohibits the government
> from establishing a state religion, also protects the right of citizens
> to freely exercise their faith. This is why the government has not legal
> authority to force employer to buy into government insurance which
> covers acts that business owner believes to be wrong.
>
> For the record, I have come to believe that in many cases the insistence
> However, if a student's religious faith prohibits him from taking part
> in the Pledge to the flag, the school may not force him to participate.
> This is because the same Constitution which prohibits the government
> from establishing a state religion, also protects the right of citizens
> to freely exercise their faith. This is why the government has not legal
> authority to force employer to buy into government insurance which
> covers acts that business owner believes to be wrong.
>
> on conservative Christians in doing things such as posting the Ten
> Commandments in the schools, is for no other reason than to be "in your
> face" about the issue of religious liberty. I am not at all certain that
> it is wise.
Steve
May 24, 2013, 5:23:09 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:10:43 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:
but not in the USA. thank goodness. As soon as the government runs a
program, all you loser leftists start demanding that it be financed in
a more "progessive" manner. You guys are already whining about how
payments to Medicare and SS should be more "progressive."
wrote:
program, all you loser leftists start demanding that it be financed in
a more "progessive" manner. You guys are already whining about how
payments to Medicare and SS should be more "progressive."
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 5:48:25 PM5/24/13
to
insurance companies can afford to undercut his rights.
American right wingers make great pets.
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 5:52:11 PM5/24/13
to
Everyone except children and sociopaths understands that.
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 6:02:23 PM5/24/13
to
care, and they pay less for it.
Steve
May 24, 2013, 6:51:22 PM5/24/13
to
sort of thing.
Steve
May 24, 2013, 6:51:22 PM5/24/13
to
should be given back to him...
Steve
May 24, 2013, 6:51:22 PM5/24/13
to
>American right wingers make great pets.
"One night when I was about fourteen or so I was outside,
camping, and I heard the brothers-in-fur begin their
nightly song to the Moon. Next thing I knew, I was on all fours, nose pointed at the sky, joing in for
all I was worth."
-- Greywolf The Wanderer
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/f7d2591e3b7951a0?hl=en&
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 7:26:27 PM5/24/13
to
There is this thing called the First Amendment. In that first amendment
is a clause which prohibits the government from interfering with the
free exercise of religion. The last time I checked, the Constitution
trumps Obamacare.
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 7:28:47 PM5/24/13
to
No matter how you cut it, there is no right enshrined in our
Constitution which allows us to demand that other people spend their
money on us.
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 7:29:20 PM5/24/13
to
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 7:31:09 PM5/24/13
to
their money on you. How very pathetic.
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 7:29:42 PM5/24/13
to
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 7:30:06 PM5/24/13
to
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 7:33:18 PM5/24/13
to
I don't believe an employer should have any say at all in an employee's
health care. None. There's no sensible reason for it other than to
control workers.
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 7:42:08 PM5/24/13
to
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 7:38:31 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:28:47 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> On 05/24/2013 03:39 PM, Zepp wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:21:38 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/24/2013 01:14 PM, Lee wrote:
>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/24/2013 11:53 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see. Workers should be left in the lurch
>>>>>> because of their boss's religious beliefs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good thing the law prevent that.......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
>>>>>
>>>>> How does this support your claim?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Acutally it is your claim (which you deleted)
>>>> that workers can be denied medical treatment if it is against their
>>>> employer's religion. The above cite shows that is illegal.
>>>
>>> How so? The cite states that the employer may not discriminate against
>>> his employee because of the employee' religion. It doe not say that he
>>> must violate his own religious beliefs by offering that which he
>>> believes to be sinful.
>>
>> So an employer can refuse an employee access to insurance which covers
>> blood transfusions, or emergency medical care during pregnancy on the
>> grounds that it could result in abortion?
>
> Refuse access? How would the employer be refusing access?
By refusing insurance coverage of whatever it is that tweaks his
> On 05/24/2013 03:39 PM, Zepp wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:21:38 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/24/2013 01:14 PM, Lee wrote:
>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/24/2013 11:53 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see. Workers should be left in the lurch
>>>>>> because of their boss's religious beliefs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good thing the law prevent that.......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
>>>>>
>>>>> How does this support your claim?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Acutally it is your claim (which you deleted)
>>>> that workers can be denied medical treatment if it is against their
>>>> employer's religion. The above cite shows that is illegal.
>>>
>>> How so? The cite states that the employer may not discriminate against
>>> his employee because of the employee' religion. It doe not say that he
>>> must violate his own religious beliefs by offering that which he
>>> believes to be sinful.
>>
>> So an employer can refuse an employee access to insurance which covers
>> blood transfusions, or emergency medical care during pregnancy on the
>> grounds that it could result in abortion?
>
> Refuse access? How would the employer be refusing access?
superstitions.
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 7:50:58 PM5/24/13
to
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 7:47:48 PM5/24/13
to
of people are stuck in jobs they hate because they cannot afford any
interruption to the insurance coverage.
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 8:14:25 PM5/24/13
to
superstitious restrictions I want to inflict on you"?
Buncy
May 24, 2013, 8:30:21 PM5/24/13
to
you until you rant like this.
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 8:30:56 PM5/24/13
to
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 8:32:47 PM5/24/13
to
so I am making you foot the bill for my insurance".
wy
May 24, 2013, 8:36:40 PM5/24/13
to
dictator he always wished he could be but never was because Hitler
beat him to the top job.
wy
May 24, 2013, 8:38:11 PM5/24/13
to
the feds. What the hell is your real point, Hartung? Dammit, make
sense, will you?
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 8:54:27 PM5/24/13
to
epithets.
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 9:28:04 PM5/24/13
to
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 9:28:30 PM5/24/13
to
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 9:33:21 PM5/24/13
to
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 9:42:37 PM5/24/13
to
wy
May 24, 2013, 9:43:01 PM5/24/13
to
everybody puts money in, only those who need it take it out, relying
on others' premiums to "foot the bill" if the amount is more than one
has put into his own premiums. They somehow think it's a purely
Capitalist concept created in America, whereby insurance companies
make a profit and that someone insured is just getting his money back,
and only his money, when filing a claim, even if he only contributed
$1,000 but his claim is for $10,000. Right wingnut math dictates that
it's still just his money and no one else's that he's taking.
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 10:18:17 PM5/24/13
to
will knock 35-40% off his premiums with no change in quality of coverage.
The California insurers submitted their bids yesterday. Right wingers
had been saying they would be as much as 66% higher, reflecting the costs
of high-risk clients and chronically ill. Instead, one was 2% higher,
and the rest lower, one 29% lower.
David Hartung
May 24, 2013, 10:29:23 PM5/24/13
to
this moral?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Zepp
May 24, 2013, 11:16:14 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:59:01 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:50:58 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> So an employer can refuse an employee access to insurance which
>>>>> covers blood transfusions, or emergency medical care during
>>>>> pregnancy on the grounds that it could result in abortion?
>>>>
>>>> Refuse access? How would the employer be refusing access?
>>>
>>> By refusing insurance coverage of whatever it is that tweaks his
>>> superstitions.
>>
>>So you do support extortion.
>
> Laws are not extortion, moron
>
> Any employer who inserts his own beliefs and forces them on others are
> breakng laws.
And anyone who says, "If you want to keep your job you must submit to my
religious beliefs" is practicing extortion.
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:50:58 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> So an employer can refuse an employee access to insurance which
>>>>> covers blood transfusions, or emergency medical care during
>>>>> pregnancy on the grounds that it could result in abortion?
>>>>
>>>> Refuse access? How would the employer be refusing access?
>>>
>>> By refusing insurance coverage of whatever it is that tweaks his
>>> superstitions.
>>
>>So you do support extortion.
>
>
> Any employer who inserts his own beliefs and forces them on others are
> breakng laws.
And anyone who says, "If you want to keep your job you must submit to my
religious beliefs" is practicing extortion.
Sid9
May 24, 2013, 11:37:00 PM5/24/13
to
"David Hartung" <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote in message
news:vuOdnRNmxrabvz3M...@giganews.com...
.
.
Zepp
May 25, 2013, 1:28:41 AM5/25/13
to
Steve
May 25, 2013, 6:16:49 AM5/25/13
to
they like to do. Most of them do not like to work.
Steve
May 25, 2013, 6:16:50 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:29:42 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:51:22 -0400, Steve wrote:
>> ...and their nanny government runs their lives... Lefties like that
>> sort of thing.
>
>Or you can be a wage slave or dead in America.
Or you can be a parasitic collector of government welfare like Zepp.
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:51:22 -0400, Steve wrote:
>> sort of thing.
>
>Or you can be a wage slave or dead in America.
Or you can be a parasitic collector of government welfare like Zepp.
Steve
May 25, 2013, 6:16:50 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:30:06 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:51:22 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:48:25 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:51:22 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:10:43 -0400, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:upkvp8p8g3d2iipjk...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:42:11 +0000 (UTC), Zepp <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:14:52 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/24/2013 01:03 PM, Zepp wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:51:48 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/24/2013 10:44 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/24/2013 10:44 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, if a student's religious faith prohibits him from
>>>>>>>>>>> taking part in the Pledge to the flag, the school may not force
>>>>>>>>>>> him to participate. This is because the same Constitution which
>>>>>>>>>>> prohibits the government from establishing a state religion,
>>>>>>>>>>> also protects the right of citizens to freely exercise their
>>>>>>>>>>> faith. This is why the government has not legal authority to
>>>>>>>>>>> force employer to buy into government insurance which covers
>>>>>>>>>>> acts that business owner believes to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could a business owner refuse to provide any
>>>>>>>>>> medical insurance for his workers by claiming it violates his
>>>>>>>>>> faith as a Christian Scientist?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So employees have no rights at all, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When did health care paid for by someone else, become a right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then the answer is to strip employers and insurance companies of all
>>>>>>roles in health care, and have a people's collective insurance, aka
>>>>>>single-payer. Do you agree?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Zepp wants the government to run the system. He hopes it'd mean free
>>>>>>>>>>> taking part in the Pledge to the flag, the school may not force
>>>>>>>>>>> him to participate. This is because the same Constitution which
>>>>>>>>>>> prohibits the government from establishing a state religion,
>>>>>>>>>>> also protects the right of citizens to freely exercise their
>>>>>>>>>>> faith. This is why the government has not legal authority to
>>>>>>>>>>> force employer to buy into government insurance which covers
>>>>>>>>>>> acts that business owner believes to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could a business owner refuse to provide any
>>>>>>>>>> medical insurance for his workers by claiming it violates his
>>>>>>>>>> faith as a Christian Scientist?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So employees have no rights at all, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When did health care paid for by someone else, become a right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then the answer is to strip employers and insurance companies of all
>>>>>>roles in health care, and have a people's collective insurance, aka
>>>>>>single-payer. Do you agree?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> health care for losers like himself.
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> Single payer or Medicare for all (not free) is used in most modern
>>>> industrial countries for years and years.
>>>> Only Americans are locked to employers, bad or good, by health
>>>> insurance.
>>>> PS health insurance companies provide no health care. Obama care has
>>>> remedied that. They must spend 85% of your premium for health care.
>>>
>>>Stevie likes to pay half again what he needs to pay in insurance costs
>>>so insurance companies can afford to undercut his rights.
>>
>> <LOL> Zepp wants others to pay for his insurance.
>
>What do you think insurance IS, moron?
<LOL> Insurance us where people pay the insurer for their coverage.
Zepp wants others to pay for his insurance. Zepp is a parasite.
--
"Bubbles, YOU'RE the one saying if we take money out of
general circulation, the economy will improve."
--David (Zepp) Jamieson stupidly claiming that corporate cash reserves "take money out of circulation"
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/9d77036a53c7a52c?hl=en&dmode=source
Steve
May 25, 2013, 6:16:50 AM5/25/13
to
level of coverage they pay for.
Socialism is, to paraphrase Marx, where people pay according to their
abilities and receive according to their needs.
David Hartung
May 25, 2013, 6:46:50 AM5/25/13
to
David Hartung
May 25, 2013, 6:47:51 AM5/25/13
to
David Hartung
May 25, 2013, 6:59:01 AM5/25/13
to
between us. You honestly believe that you have the moral right to take
what belongs to others, in order to support your social agenda. In my
opinion, this is the biggest weakness in our system. Those who have
nothing, and who pay few, if any taxes, have the power through their
numbers at the ballot box, to take from those who have something and who
pay most of the taxes. It is this ability of the masses to vote
themselves "bread and circuses" out of the public treasuries that will
ultimately destroy our nation. It may not happen today, or even
tomorrow, but it will happen.
wy
May 25, 2013, 9:33:32 AM5/25/13
to
doing the whole time.
Sid9
May 25, 2013, 10:08:50 AM5/25/13
to
news:b721q8loqsrbekchu...@4ax.com...
Just like in Medicare and in Obamacare
What's your beef? or is it simply ignorance?
What's your beef? or is it simply ignorance?
Sid9
May 25, 2013, 10:11:04 AM5/25/13
to
news:mIidnWmVKpMHCz3M...@giganews.com...
Under Obamacare insurance companies must spend at least 85% of premiums on
subscribers health care.
That's new.
subscribers health care.
That's new.
Lee
May 25, 2013, 10:35:58 AM5/25/13
to
David Hartung wrote:
> On 05/24/2013 02:34 PM, Lee wrote:
> > David Hartung wrote:
> >
> > > On 05/24/2013 01:14 PM, Lee wrote:
> > > > David Hartung wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 05/24/2013 11:53 AM, Lee wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >>>>> I see. Workers should be left in the lurch
> > > > > > because of their boss's religious beliefs?
> > > > > >
> >>>>> Good thing the law prevent that.......
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
> > > > >
> > > > > How does this support your claim?
> > > >
> > > >
> >>> Acutally it is your claim (which you deleted)
> > > > that workers can be denied medical treatment if it
> > > > is against their employer's religion. The above cite
> > > > shows that is illegal.
> > >
> > > How so? The cite states that the employer may not discriminate
> > > against his employee because of the employee' religion. It doe not
> > > say that he must violate his own religious beliefs by offering
> > > that which he believes to be sinful.
> >
> >
> > Show us a religious exemption from the requirement
> > that employers over 50 people carry insurance on their
> > workers.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/health/employers-must-offer-family
> > -hea lth-care-affordable-or-not-administration-says.html?_r=
>
> A newspaper article?
>
> There is this thing called the First Amendment. In that first
> amendment is a clause which prohibits the government from interfering
> with the free exercise of religion.
Should the Mormons be able to practice polygamy?
Do drug laws not apply to Rasta's?
Can Wiccans engage in public nudity?
The last time I checked, the
> Constitution trumps Obamacare.
The Supreme Court has said otherwise.
> On 05/24/2013 02:34 PM, Lee wrote:
> > David Hartung wrote:
> >
> > > On 05/24/2013 01:14 PM, Lee wrote:
> > > > David Hartung wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 05/24/2013 11:53 AM, Lee wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >>>>> I see. Workers should be left in the lurch
> > > > > > because of their boss's religious beliefs?
> > > > > >
> >>>>> Good thing the law prevent that.......
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
> > > > >
> > > > > How does this support your claim?
> > > >
> > > >
> >>> Acutally it is your claim (which you deleted)
> > > > that workers can be denied medical treatment if it
> > > > is against their employer's religion. The above cite
> > > > shows that is illegal.
> > >
> > > How so? The cite states that the employer may not discriminate
> > > against his employee because of the employee' religion. It doe not
> > > say that he must violate his own religious beliefs by offering
> > > that which he believes to be sinful.
> >
> >
> > that employers over 50 people carry insurance on their
> > workers.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/health/employers-must-offer-family
> > -hea lth-care-affordable-or-not-administration-says.html?_r=
>
> A newspaper article?
>
> There is this thing called the First Amendment. In that first
> amendment is a clause which prohibits the government from interfering
> with the free exercise of religion.
Should the Mormons be able to practice polygamy?
Do drug laws not apply to Rasta's?
Can Wiccans engage in public nudity?
The last time I checked, the
> Constitution trumps Obamacare.
The Supreme Court has said otherwise.
Lee
May 25, 2013, 10:44:15 AM5/25/13
to
be allowed to vote?
2) Should poor people have no say in the laws
that will govern them?
wy
May 25, 2013, 10:54:36 AM5/25/13
to
power for them against the filthy rich who hold power in so many other
ways. But often, the power of the vote isn't enough because the
filthy rich can still wield their enormous power to still have their
way, thanks to the fortunes they've amassed - no doubt as a result of
the labor of the masses. And part of having their way is also to try
pay as little or no taxes at all, despite their obvious ability to be
able to afford to pay taxes without suffering the slightest nick to
their wallet. If the rich can reap so much by taking advantage of the
masses, why shouldn't the masses take advantage of the rich and get
something in return? Or does Hartung believe America is just a one-
way street, only for the rich?
Zepp
May 25, 2013, 11:25:57 AM5/25/13
to
statement.
"If you want to keep your job you must submit to my religious beliefs" is
practicing extortion.
Buncy
May 25, 2013, 11:37:08 AM5/25/13
to
Strawman alert!
Slippery Slope alert!
Moron alert!
Sid9
May 25, 2013, 11:46:57 AM5/25/13
to
"Lee" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:E6qdnUZVSt6iUz3M...@giganews.com...
Steve
May 25, 2013, 1:32:22 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:08:50 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:
<CHUCKLE> Neither one works that way.
wrote:
David Hartung
May 25, 2013, 1:40:56 PM5/25/13
to
would vote to be citizens of substance. If I could figure out a way to
make it work, I would grant votes on the basis of taxes paid. Everybody
who has a net Federal tax liability gets one vote. Those who pay more,
would get extra vots depending on how much they pay. This would ensure
that those who actually pay the taxes, control how those tax monies are
spent.
> 2) Should poor people have no say in the laws
> that will govern them?
be restricted from voting for as long as they are on those programs.
Those who are net beneficiaries of the Federal government, should not
have the ability to vote themselves ever increasing benefits from the
Federal trough.
Does this sound hard? Yes it does, but if we are to survive another
hundred years as a free nation such moves will be necessary.
David Hartung
May 25, 2013, 1:44:13 PM5/25/13
to
2. I actually believe that if you wish to hire only atheists, and of I
wish to hire only Lutherans, we have that right. There is nothing in the
Constitution which gives the government a right to dictates to me who I
must hire, or the qualifications I might place on the job.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages