Finn-Italian mother gets crusifixes banned in all EU schools ?
Kari Tikkanen
=====
"Italy school crucifixes 'barred'
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of
crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their
children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to
freedom of religion.
The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to
give her children a secular education.
But the ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with
one politician calling the move "shameful".
The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol
of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities...
restricted the right of parents to educate their children in
conformity with their convictions."
...
...
=====
Italy now/tomorrow, EU next?
Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved
in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as
violation of hers childrens rights...
wf3h
>
> Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved
> in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as
> violation of hers childrens rights...
good for her....takes people with courage to stand up for rights
Burkhard
There is a much older decision from Bavaria on that. Though the German
constitutional court was slightly less rigorous - crucifixes are OK if
they are so small that there is no danger that the school as institution
is identified with the religion. In typically German rigorousness, the
court specified the exact measurements a crucifix is allowed to have in
order to be constitutional (bit bigger when without body on it)
Rebdominator
values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the
highway! This is nothing about rights.
Vend
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm
> =====
> "Italy school crucifixes 'barred'
>
> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of
> crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
>
> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their
> children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to
> freedom of religion.
This is not the first time this issue is brought up in Italy.
A Muslim father attempted to have the crucifix removed from public
schools. Initially a court ruled in his favour, sparking a political
controversy, eventually an higher court overturned the previous
ruling, absurdly claiming that the cruicifix was a symbol of secular
values.
Kari Tikkanen
Finnish public tv (and internet) has interviewed her. She's atheist.
During process She has got death threats, unsigned letters, insolent/
rude phone calls and letters. This has not been very funny, Lautsi
said in YLE (Finnish Broadcasting Company ) News interview.
"We are scum in this country" (headline)
She said that Italy is very powerfully religious and repressive
against other religions. And probably atheists are even more
persecuted than other religions.
(Maybe her's view is colored and distorted somebit during process?
I've read that Italians are quite secularized, for ex they use
condoms, gets divorced etc and already even in Middle ages:
Renaissance etc?)
Here YLE news about it only in Finnish language:
http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/2009/11/krusifikseja_vastustanut_suomalaisnainen_sai_tappouhkauksia_italiassa_1134638.html
Vend
> This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
> values and culture?
Values such as bigotry and hypocrisy?
> Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
> Italians,
Italians are still free to keep crucifixes in their religious schools,
churches, homes and on their person. There is no reason to display it
in a public school.
Vend
That doesn't appear to be correct.
Italy doesn't presecute atheists other non-catholics, however the
Catholic Church, even if it not formally considered the state church
anymore, enjoys a priviledged position, and recently it seems to have
a big lobbying power over politicians.
> (Maybe her's view is colored and distorted somebit during process?
> I've read that Italians are quite secularized, for ex they use
> condoms, gets divorced etc and already even in Middle ages:
> Renaissance etc?)
Italy exists since 1861, and divorce wasn't allowed until 1970.
Similarly, abortion was illegal until 1978.
Catholicism was the state religion until 1984, even if the Italian
Constitution grants religious freedom since 1946.
Catholicism is still taught, at taxpayer expense, in Italian public
schools to students who request it.
> Here YLE news about it only in Finnish language:http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/2009/11/krusifikseja_vastustanut_s...
heekster
wrote:
What it actually is, is a Roman torture and execution device.
I cannot think of a more bizarre symbol for a religion of peace.
John Wilkins
<heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
Just as well it's not being used by any, then.
Iain
>
><snip>
IMO this should just be bound up with the right of a school to demand
that their students wear uniforms.
--Iain
J. J. Lodder
> This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
> values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
> Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the
> highway!
Half of the Italian's values.
The other half (all those not voting for Berlusconi)
are commies, didn't you know?
> This is nothing about rights.
Sure, and the Brits have their god-given rights
to beat up their kiddies too!
Damn fucking Europeans,
Jan
wf3h
seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen
'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values
don't seem to mean much.
that, in and of itself, is a 'european' value so removing crucifixes
is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made.
wf3h
>
> A Muslim father attempted to have the crucifix removed from public
> schools. Initially a court ruled in his favour, sparking a political
> controversy, eventually an higher court overturned the previous
> ruling, absurdly claiming that the cruicifix was a symbol of secular
> values.
here in the states we have supreme court justice scalia objecting to
removing crosses in national cemeteries, saying the cross is a
'universal' symbol of the dead
he didn't comment on the lack of crosses on jewish graves
J. J. Lodder
> On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
> > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
> > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the
> > highway! This is nothing about rights.
>
> seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen
> 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values
> don't seem to mean much.
Not really.
Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights.
(which are not particularly European)
> that, in and of itself, is a 'european' value so removing crucifixes
> is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made.
National laws conflicting with the human rights standard
have to be revised,
Jan
All-Seeing-I
Intresting. Thanks for posting it.
There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in
Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside
entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has
lived for a couple thousands of years.
Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same
ability to tell you in America how to live as well. Which is no
problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you
are atheist.
But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes
within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history?
What will you say when the winds of change bring something like a "One
World" religion and it will be ruled by the court that all atheist
will bow their knee or suffer the consequences?
Truly I say to you, A ruling such as this is bad for everyone. It
offers no personal freedoms although it may seem on the surface that
it does. In fact we may be witnessing the begining stages of a world
wide dictatorship where the few will dictate to the many how they will
live; which by the way has even been prophisied about in the bible.
It would be better for the Atheists in Italy to have more tollerance
(as hard as that will be in an all Catholic Country i realize) then to
allow a hand full of people in another country to dictate how millions
will think and live.
The same attitudes are even here in America. The cross is just a piece
of metal in a specific shape. It is the repersentation of the cross to
the individual that is meaningful. So If you are truly atheist then
the cross means nothing to you. Your perception of the cross it that
of just another piece of jewlery. It would not have an ability to
"offend" you. In fact, anything of a religious nature would not have
the ability to offend you if you had a true atheist outlook.
So this means there is something else going on with this issue other
then just wanting to remove a cross, or remove a nativity scean from
public view. And certainly this court's ruling is bad for all of
humanity. Including the atheists.
--
Seeing it all
The All Seeing I
Burkhard
You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, D.C.
rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living in Colorado
from Nevada which has implication in every state/
>
> Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same
> ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
Which is no
> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you
> are atheist.
>
> But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes
> within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history?
The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt
make up its own laws.
All-Seeing-I
Actually... Yes. The federal government's original scope of
responsibility was originally only two things. 1) Provide for the
common defense of the states that united together and 2) Conduct
foreign policy.
So if Boston wants to allow Gay Marriage that does not mean that
Kentucky has to do the same. But the Federal courts step in and
dictate how each state will allow it's people to live. It was not
suppose to be that way. Each state should have the right to live by
the will of the people in that state.
>
>
> > Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same
> > ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
>
> You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
Yep. But thay want to put that court under the The European Court
> Which is no
>
> > problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you
> > are atheist.
>
> > But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes
> > within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history?
>
> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt
> make up its own laws.
Someone makes up the laws. The point stands. The few (in another
country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you
always get so easily distracted from the point?
> > The All Seeing I- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Burkhard
So the southern states should have the right to hold slaves, or a state
shoudl have the right to torture suspects? How about the right to
prohibit all religion? Read the 14th Amendment
and why stop at states? How is this different from the Texas Supreme
Court in Austin telling people in San Antonio what to do? Laws are
always about telling people what to do, that is pretty much their point.
>>
>>> Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same
>>> ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
>> You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
>
> Yep. But thay want to put that court under the The European Court
>
So the US is in Europe now, or signatory to the European convention of
Human rights? Nonsensical fantasy with no basis in reality.
>> Which is no
>>
>>> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since
>>> you are atheist. But what will happen when the winds of change
>>> bring new attitudes within populations as we have seen happen all
>>> throughout history?
>> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does
>> nt make up its own laws.
>
> Someone makes up the laws.
The point stands. The few (in another
> country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you
> always get so easily distracted from the point?
>
The point is that these states signed up voluntarily to a law, they now
abide by it. Nobody was forced to do anything. The Italians had as much
as a say as the Germans etc.
J. J. Lodder
> Someone makes up the laws.
Sure, merely the parliaments of the member countries
that ratified the European Convention on human rights.
Just a lot of nobodies of no importance at all of course,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
File in the casus belli department:
> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
> Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.
Jan
Burkhard
shut down to prevent explosion from exposure to such an inanity.
wf3h
> On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Italy now/tomorrow, EU next?
>
> > Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved
> > in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as
> > violation of hers childrens rights...
>
> Intresting. Thanks for posting it.
>
> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
> Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in
> Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside
> entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has
> lived for a couple thousands of years.
what we have is italy, having agreed to be part of the EU, how
agreeing to be bound by EU decisions...
italy is in europe, if you haven't noticed
>
> Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same
> ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
nope. wrong. no one is proposing that. no one
Which is no
> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you
> are atheist.
funny, thomas jefferson agreed with such a ruling as well...ever read
the US constitution?
you theocrats just hate religious freedom, don't you?
>
> But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes
> within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history?
> What will you say when the winds of change bring something like a "One
> World" religion and it will be ruled by the court that all atheist
> will bow their knee or suffer the consequences?
yeah. it's called 'christianity'. you guys already tried that, which
is why jefferson wrote the 1st amendment. look at the bigotry you guys
just pulled in maine.
>
> It would be better for the Atheists in Italy to have more tollerance
> (as hard as that will be in an all Catholic Country i realize) then to
> allow a hand full of people in another country to dictate how millions
> will think and live.
why shouldn't CHRISTIANS have tolerance? you think jews, muslims,
atheists, all think of the cross the same way you do?
>
> The same attitudes are even here in America. The cross is just a piece
> of metal in a specific shape. It is the repersentation of the cross to
> the individual that is meaningful. So If you are truly atheist then
> the cross means nothing to you.
uh wrong. it means christianity. i have the right, in a public, govt
place, not to be exposed to religious ideas i do not agree with. why
dont YOU give up your views and accept atheism?
>
> So this means there is something else going on with this issue other
> then just wanting to remove a cross, or remove a nativity scean from
> public view. And certainly this court's ruling is bad for all of
> humanity. Including the atheists.
>
tell it to jefferson
wf3h
> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
> > > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
> > > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the
> > > highway! This is nothing about rights.
>
> > seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen
> > 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values
> > don't seem to mean much.
>
> Not really.
> Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights.
> (which are not particularly European)
i disagree. the modern concept of 'human rights' is very much a
european idea.
>
> > that, in and of itself, is a 'european' value so removing crucifixes
> > is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made.
>
> National laws conflicting with the human rights standard
> have to be revised,
i don't know what this means. the vatican seems to think 'human
rights' means being religious.
Hatunen
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
>> values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
>> Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the
>> highway! This is nothing about rights.
>
>seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen
>'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values
>don't seem to mean much.
You need to talk to more EU "nationals"; national identity and
culture are still strong in most EU countries. That fact is one
of the major impediments to many suggested EU 'constitutioan"
fixes.
I have to admity, thoug, that the younger generation seems to be
converging on a common set of cultural values whatever their
particular country. Unfortunately, that common set of cultural
values seems to be American.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Desertphile
wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> File in the casus belli department:
>>> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
>>> Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.
> OMG, I actually overlooked that - probably my brain having an emergency
> shut down to prevent explosion from exposure to such an inanity.
France didn't deserve the city anyhow: California makes better
wine. The question is, how the hell was it moved?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Hatunen
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>On Nov 4, 9:24 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> > On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
>> > > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
>> > > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the
>> > > highway! This is nothing about rights.
>>
>> > seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen
>> > 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values
>> > don't seem to mean much.
>>
>> Not really.
>> Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights.
>> (which are not particularly European)
>
>i disagree. the modern concept of 'human rights' is very much a
>european idea.
Well, that is certainly arguable. One might say, though, that it
is a concept of Western Civilization, but it certainly seems to
be johnny-come-lately. Until at least the Rennaisance there were
no human rights, and for centuries afterward those rights were
the right of the aristocracy and royalty, not the Third Estate.
Hatunen
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
>Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.
Strasbourg, GERMANY? Way to shoot yorueself in teh foot before
you even get started.
>The complaint was in
>Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside
>entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has
>lived for a couple thousands of years.
The complainant lives in Italy. Here in the US eople born in
ohter coutnries are also allowed to bring suit in American
courts.
>Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same
>ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
The US courts have already made public schools give up religious
regalia.
>Which is no
>problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you
>are atheist.
Oh, yeah. You're the one who considers Jews and Muslims to b
atheists, aren't you.
>But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes
>within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history?
>What will you say when the winds of change bring something like a "One
>World" religion and it will be ruled by the court that all atheist
>will bow their knee or suffer the consequences?
Whew. You really know how to create a BIG slippery slope, doncha?
[drivel deleted]
backspace
> > The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt
> > make up its own laws.
> Someone makes up the laws. The point stands. The few (in another
> country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you
> always get so easily distracted from the point?
Burkhard is a deceitful lier an atheist, he twists and turns
everything one says, holding himself deliberatly obtuse. You should
see how is trying to confuse the simple concept of saying the same
thing twice. He delights in deceit , guile is in his mouth .....
J. J. Lodder
> On Nov 4, 9:24 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
> > > > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
> > > > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the
> > > > highway! This is nothing about rights.
> >
> > > seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen
> > > 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values
> > > don't seem to mean much.
> >
> > Not really.
> > Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights.
> > (which are not particularly European)
>
> i disagree. the modern concept of 'human rights' is very much a
> european idea.
It spread to some less civilized parts of the world though.
> > > that, in and of itself, is a 'european' value so removing crucifixes
> > > is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made.
> >
> > National laws conflicting with the human rights standard
> > have to be revised,
>
> i don't know what this means. the vatican seems to think 'human
> rights' means being religious.
Just what it says.
The European court doesn't rule on individual cases.
It may rule that some national law is in conflict
with the European Convention of Human Rights.
It's up to that country to revise it's law(s)
in any way they see fit to make them conform,
Jan
Hatunen
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 4, 9:02 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
>> You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, D.C.
>> rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living in Colorado
>> from Nevada which has implication in every state/
>
>Actually... Yes. The federal government's original scope of
>responsibility was originally only two things. 1) Provide for the
>common defense of the states that united together and 2) Conduct
>foreign policy.
That's simply not true. That was the de facto purview of the
Articles of Confederation, which caused so much trouble for the
thirteen nation-states that they called for the revision of the
Articles.
The preamble to the US Constitution says:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America."
So the responsibility is:
"Form a more perfect union" compared to the Articles of
Confederation;
"Establish justice", which is neither foreign policy nor the
common defense;
"Insure domestic tranquility", ditto
"Provide for the common defense", so you get one right
"Promote the general welfare", which I think you would have to
admit covers a lot more than foreign affairs or the common
defense;
"Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity",
ditto.
You really ought to learn more about the constitution before you
pop off. I'm currently reading Catherine Drinker Bowen's "Miracle
at Philadelphia", which covers a lot of the sentiments and
arguments expressed by the Founding Fathers regarding the nature
of a good government (the "Miracle" is that they finally agreed
on the proposed revision of the Articles). You might also try
reading The Federalist, which rebuts many of the arguments being
made against the adoption of the US Constitution.
>So if Boston wants to allow Gay Marriage that does not mean that
>Kentucky has to do the same. But the Federal courts step in and
>dictate how each state will allow it's people to live. It was not
>suppose to be that way. Each state should have the right to live by
>the will of the people in that state.
You really don't know much about the Constitution, do you?
Article IV, Sect 1, states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given
in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general
Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
In other words legal acts in one state must be respected in all
the others. Even if a state forbids gay marriage, that state is
constitutionally bound to recognize a gay marriage made in a
state that does allow it. Obviusly, this does not sit well in
some states and this is currently undergoing a lot of legal
wrangling and rationalization, bringing back the very old concept
of state nullification from before the Civil War.
>> > Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same
>> > ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
>>
>> You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
>
>Yep. But thay want to put that court under the The European Court
Who is "thay" [sic]?
>
>> Which is no
>>
>> > problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you
>> > are atheist.
>>
>> > But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes
>> > within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history?
>>
>> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt
>> make up its own laws.
>
>Someone makes up the laws. The point stands. The few (in another
>country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you
>always get so easily distracted from the point?
Do you understand that the United States of America is a
federation of countries (at least the first thirteen were)?
The delegates to the Constitution Convention in 1787 meant their
own colony, now state, when they talked of, say, returning to
their country. Do you know what the word "state" means?
Now the EU is trying the same sort of thing, and the treaty
signed by all the countries of the EU provides for the common EU
court system. In other words, those nations accepted the
jurisdiciton of the EU courts and EU law (save for some of the
original signers who opted out of some parts of the treaty).
wf3h
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 04:53:24 -0800 (PST), wf3h
>
>
>
> >'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values
> >don't seem to mean much.
>
> You need to talk to more EU "nationals"; national identity and
> culture are still strong in most EU countries. That fact is one
> of the major impediments to many suggested EU 'constitutioan"
> fixes.
been there about a dozen times; and you're right, nationalism is very
strong in many countries. it's a reason why multiple votes have been
needed in, say, ireland, to agree to a constitution, etc. but it's
ALSO true that the existence of the EU itself means something....and
that seems to be sacrificing some measure of national sovereignty in
the same way that individual american states sacrifice their
sovereignty in the name of the US. (at least that's what adenauer
thought; the analogy to the US states is his, not mine.)
>
> I have to admit, though, that the younger generation seems to be
> converging on a common set of cultural values whatever their
> particular country. Unfortunately, that common set of cultural
> values seems to be American.
jesus, tell me it ain't true...especially the part about religion...
as much as i love my country, it has some SERIOUS problems...
wf3h
says the lying, deceitful religious fanatic 'backspace'...etc etc.
Bruce Stephens
> On Nov 4, 1:23 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
> [...] but it's ALSO true that the existence of the EU itself means
> something....and that seems to be sacrificing some measure of national
> sovereignty in the same way that individual american states sacrifice
> their sovereignty in the name of the US. (at least that's what
> adenauer thought; the analogy to the US states is his, not mine.)
True, though someone might use the term "sharing" rather than
"sacrificing" which gives the notions a quite different feel. (I'm not
convinced that either is obviously more correct.)
[...]
Burkhard
> On Nov 4, 5:16 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt
>>> make up its own laws.
>
>> Someone makes up the laws. The point stands. The few (in another
>> country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you
>> always get so easily distracted from the point?
>
> Burkhard is a deceitful lier an atheist,
Quite on the contrary, I'm the only true theist on this news group.
he twists and turns
> everything one says,
says the person who has made a hobby of "rephrasing" statements made by
others until they are totally garbled
Burkhard
I'm not sure what you mean with this. The ECHR does not give advisory
opinions. All cases that it hears must first have exhausted the national
court system, that alone ensures that the cases it hears are individual
cases, with the pursuer complaining against he violation of his rights
by a signatory state. See Art 34 and 35 of the convention. True, there
is also a procedure for "abstract" control, when one member state
alleges that the laws of anther state are incompatible with the ECHR
(Art 33), but this procedure is hardly ever used. The court can also
award damages against he party whose rights were violated (Art 41)
Are you maybe confusing the ECHR with the ECJ?
J. J. Lodder
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:04:15 -0800 (PST), wf3h
> <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 4, 9:24 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
> >> > > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
> >> > > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the
> >> > > highway! This is nothing about rights.
> >>
> >> > seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen
> >> > 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values
> >> > don't seem to mean much.
> >>
> >> Not really.
> >> Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights.
> >> (which are not particularly European)
> >
> >i disagree. the modern concept of 'human rights' is very much a
> >european idea.
>
> Well, that is certainly arguable. One might say, though, that it
> is a concept of Western Civilization, but it certainly seems to
> be johnny-come-lately. Until at least the Rennaisance there were
> no human rights, and for centuries afterward those rights were
> the right of the aristocracy and royalty, not the Third Estate.
Not really. It all started in the Netherlands
(the first bourgeois republic in moderen times, 1572)
where they invented things like freedom of religion,
freedom of the press, etc.
(all more or less, for people who didn't make
to much of a nuisance of themselves)
The French Enlightenment followed,
and the Americans took their cues from both,
Jan
ed wolf
snip
> What it actually is, is a Roman torture and execution device.
>
> I cannot think of a more bizarre symbol for a religion of peace.
During this dispute some Italians claimed the cross as a part of
their national culture and identity. Were they referring to their
Roman heritage or their Christian tradition? Just wondering : )
regards
ed
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 9:02 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> >>> On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why do you want to inject ancient history into this? It does not
matter if you are christian, or jew, or atheist. This should be a
concern to all of us.
>
> and why stop at states? How is this different from the Texas Supreme
> Court in Austin telling people in San Antonio what to do? Laws are
> always about telling people what to do, that is pretty much their point.
>
>
>
> >>> Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same
> >>> ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
> >> You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
>
> > Yep. But thay want to put that court under the The European Court
>
> So the US is in Europe now, or signatory to the European convention of
> Human rights? Nonsensical fantasy with no basis in reality.
>
> >> Which is no
>
> >>> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since
> >>> you are atheist. But what will happen when the winds of change
> >>> bring new attitudes within populations as we have seen happen all
> >>> throughout history?
> >> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does
> >> nt make up its own laws.
>
> > Someone makes up the laws.
>
> The point stands. The few (in another> country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you
> > always get so easily distracted from the point?
>
> The point is that these states signed up voluntarily to a law, they now
> abide by it. Nobody was forced to do anything. The Italians had as much
> as a say as the Germans etc.
If you were a doctor, you would treat the sympton while over looking
tha cure.
All-seeing-I
You are correct. As usual.
All-seeing-I
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:16:00 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
THAT would be you.
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to "we the people." The
preamble (which you quoted from) in no way shows what powers are
allocated to the fed from the states.
But more to the point, you quoted /WHY they wrote the Constitution/. I
gave you HOW they should guarantee what is in the preamble of the
constitution; which is 1) Provide for the common defense and 2)
Conduct foreign affairs for the original states. Thereby allowing each
state to guarantee the rights of each of it's citizens as outlined in
the preamble.
Why do you think each state has it's own constitution fool? If the
fed was to govern the states we would not need a Governor in each
state. If the Fed 's mandate was to govern the states with it's
constitution then the states would not need individual constitutions.
Would they?
If the fed actually had the power to tell states what to do they would
not offer 'bribe money' to the state's to comply with it's laws and
pet projects. If the fed actually had the power to tell states what to
do the FBI would not be mandated to notify and get permission from the
sheriff of any jurisdiction it conducts an investigation in.
You did not show WHAT the responsibility of the Federal Government was
IN THE BEGINNING. I did.
"It is a primary obligation of the federal government to provide for
the common defense, and to be vigilant regarding potential threats,
prospective capabilities, and perceived intentions of potential
enemies." The federal government's roll was never suppose to dictate
who or who could not get married. It was never suppose to dictate what
could or could not be under scientific research. It was never designed
to make decisions in people's personal lives.
The Fed today far over reaches it's original authority, which was my
point. Partly out of necessity, partly out of ego as time went by..
http://www.constitutionalpolitics.com/role.html
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
Now, we could argue this further but it is only distracting from the
premise of OP.
Was your intention to distract from the OP?
Do you lack focus?
wf3h
> On Nov 4, 1:01 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > You really ought to learn more about the constitution before you
> > pop off. I'm currently reading Catherine Drinker Bowen's "Miracle
> > at Philadelphia", which covers a lot of the sentiments and
> > arguments expressed by the Founding Fathers regarding the nature
> > of a good government (the "Miracle" is that they finally agreed
> > on the proposed revision of the Articles). You might also try
> > reading The Federalist, which rebuts many of the arguments being
> > made against the adoption of the US Constitution.
> >
>
> THAT would be you.
>
> The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United
> States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
> reserved to the States respectively, or to "we the people." The
> preamble (which you quoted from) in no way shows what powers are
> allocated to the fed from the states.
>
> But more to the point, you quoted /WHY they wrote the Constitution/. I
> gave you HOW they should guarantee what is in the preamble of the
> constitution; which is 1) Provide for the common defense and 2)
> Conduct foreign affairs for the original states. Thereby allowing each
> state to guarantee the rights of each of it's citizens as outlined in
> the preamble.
those are not the ONLY responsibilities of the federal govt, of
course...
> If the fed actually had the power to tell states what to do they would
> not offer 'bribe money' to the state's to comply with it's laws and
> pet projects. If the fed actually had the power to tell states what to
> do the FBI would not be mandated to notify and get permission from the
> sheriff of any jurisdiction it conducts an investigation in.
actually the fed. govt DOES have the right to tell the states what to
do. example: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 gives the federal govt the
right to regulate interstate commerce.
in addition, the 14th amendment, provides for 'incorporation'...the
fact that federal laws on civil rights (eg the 1st amendment) applies
not only to the federal govt, but to the states
which is one reason you religious fanatics can't form state
churches...much to your dismay
MAB
> On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Intresting. Thanks for posting it.
>
> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
> Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in
> Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside
> entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has
> lived for a couple thousands of years.
>
The All Seeing I gets it wrong again! The issue before the courts was
that the mother doesn't want the school telling her child how to live
or what to believe.
Mark
> --
> Seeing it all - DEFINITELY NOT
>
> The All Seeing I
All-Seeing-I
> On Nov 4, 12:18 am, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
> > values and culture?
>
>
> > Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
> > Italians,
>
> churches, homes and on their person. There is no reason to display it
> in a public school.
You want to change an entire country's tradition that has been held by
many people and their generations for thousands of years? Why? Because
of a hand full of people, (that are not even from that country), claim
their eyes may bleed if they see a cross anywhere in public?
If these freaks were truly atheist then the cross would mean nothing
to them. It would not offend them as this woman has claimed. The cross
would be a meaningless piece of jewlery because the cross only has a
meaning to those that believe in Jesus' is the messiah.
Now the funny part is all of this is foretold to happen in the bible.
We will see a one world government followed by a one world religion
led by an anti-Christ.(which simply means "against Christ").
The only way something like that can happen is if it can be enforced.
A one world court, backed up by a one world currency, which will
prevent you from buying or selling if you do not take the mark, would
be enough to enforce the decisions of such a court. What will you
atheist pukes do then?
What will you do when you are forced to wear a religious symbol by a
court? The bible calls this symbol the mark of the beast. What will
you do when you can neither buy nor sell anything without joining this
one world religion?
If you get upset and run to the courts now because you merely see a
cross in public, who will you run to when it is the courts forcing you
to worship a God? And that is what this anti-christ will call himself.
You will run to the Christians who will be smart enough to resist this
kind of dominance. Thats who. Because Christians know what is going to
take place. Christians will be persecuted in every corner of the Earth
just like we are beginning to see happen today. Christians know that
this one world government is coming. Christians realize that this will
lead to a one world currency where you will not be able to buy food or
sell your products without being a part of this anti-Christ government
and religion. They will resist it. Even die doing so.
So like the previous poster said: "This is nothing about rights". This
is about a spiritual Chess game that is being fought on earth with
humans as pawns in the game.
Which means the Atheists are just pawns. But Christians knew THAT
already too.
> > so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the
> > highway! This is nothing about rights.- Hide quoted text -
All-Seeing-I
> On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
> > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the
> > highway! This is nothing about rights.
>
> seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen
> 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values
> don't seem to mean much.
>
> is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made.
No. The problem is most EU's want to remain seperate countries with
their own identies and values. This has been forced upon many people.
And this is coming to your local theater in America real soon!
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess you missed the word "ORIGINAL"
amendments were not part of the original constitution.
idiot.
Burkhard
to prevent local majorities from attacking local minorities in the nam
eof "community norms".
All-Seeing-I
You do not see where this could lead, do you? The consequences could
be much graver then local majorities from attacking local minorities,
which are already afforded an element of protection.
It would be the reverse. There would be a minority of leaders that
could tell the majority of the population how to live, how to think,
what to believe.
Burkhard
> It would be the reverse. There would be a minority of leaders that
> could tell the majority of the population how to live, how to think,
> what to believe.
That is your unsubstantiated claim. The purpose of the Bill of Rights,
or the ECHR, is to defend the individual against oppressive majorities
and the state. Of course, that will result on occasions in conflict
with how this majority wants to run things, it is designed to do just
that. Do what you want, but do it privately and amongst consenting
people, do not use the state to enforce your views on others, which is
who according to the court happened in Italy. Would I have brought the
action myself? No, I'm not bothered by a mere symbol. But I don't
have the right to tell others where their sensitivities have to be, it
is for individuals to decide that.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 3, 6:07 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 12:18 am, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
>> > values and culture?
>>
>> Values such as bigotry and hypocrisy?
>>
>> > Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
>> > Italians,
>>
>> Italians are still free to keep crucifixes in their religious schools,
>> churches, homes and on their person. There is no reason to display it
>> in a public school.
>
>You want to change an entire country's tradition that has been held by
>many people and their generations for thousands of years? Why?
Because this is not the dark ages.
>Because
>of a hand full of people, (that are not even from that country), claim
>their eyes may bleed if they see a cross anywhere in public?
Would you object to a golden calf? How about a swastika?
>
>If these freaks were truly atheist then the cross would mean nothing
>to them. It would not offend them as this woman has claimed. The cross
>would be a meaningless piece of jewlery because the cross only has a
>meaning to those that believe in Jesus' is the messiah.
The cross has been, throughout its history, a sign of hatred and
terror.
[snip more harpic nutspeak.]
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
wf3h
if this were true, there woudn't BE an EU, would there? membership is
voluntary and is decided by popular vote.
try again....
>
> And this is coming to your local theater in America real soon!
blah blah blah. time to change your diaper. you've pissed yourself
again.
wf3h
> On Nov 3, 6:07 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> >
> > Italians are still free to keep crucifixes in their religious schools,
> > churches, homes and on their person. There is no reason to display it
> > in a public school.
>
> You want to change an entire country's tradition that has been held by
> many people and their generations for thousands of years? Why? Because
> of a hand full of people, (that are not even from that country), claim
> their eyes may bleed if they see a cross anywhere in public?
yeah, freedom's a bitch, ain't it. just think...it used to be a
tradition that whites could own blacks....
>
> If these freaks were truly atheist then the cross would mean nothing
> to them.
what makes you think the cross means nothing to an atheist? another
example of idiocy from the terrorist/taliban christian side
It would not offend them as this woman has claimed. The cross
> would be a meaningless piece of jewlery because the cross only has a
> meaning to those that believe in Jesus' is the messiah.
really? and the hammer and sickle only has a meaning to communists,
right?
>
> Now the funny part is all of this is foretold to happen in the bible.
> We will see a one world government followed by a one world religion
> led by an anti-Christ.(which simply means "against Christ").
you guys have been saying that for 2000 years. any idea when you'll
start the party?
>
> The only way something like that can happen is if it can be enforced.
> A one world court, backed up by a one world currency, which will
> prevent you from buying or selling if you do not take the mark, would
> be enough to enforce the decisions of such a court. What will you
> atheist pukes do then?
really? italy will cause a 1 world court?
of course, i used to be a member, about 40 years ago, of the christian
and missionary alliance church. those idiots believed the end times
crap as well. they said that, when the 'common market' hit 10 members,
the antichrist would come
you guys keep sliding out the goalposts, don't you?
>
> What will you do when you are forced to wear a religious symbol by a
> court?
kind of like when christians forced jews to wear a distinctive badge?
that what you have in mind?
>
> If you get upset and run to the courts now because you merely see a
> cross in public, who will you run to when it is the courts forcing you
> to worship a God? And that is what this anti-christ will call himself.
i think his tin foil hat slipped
>
> You will run to the Christians who will be smart enough to resist this
> kind of dominance. Thats who. Because Christians know what is going to
> take place.
2000 years...and still shrieking the sky is falling...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Christians will be persecuted in every corner of the Earth
> just like we are beginning to see happen today.
you guys have done enough persecuting...like you did yesterday with
your hatred of homosexuals. like you yourself did when you said it
was right to murder them
you reap what you sow.
Christians know that
> this one world government is coming. Christians realize that this will
> lead to a one world currency where you will not be able to buy food or
> sell your products without being a part of this anti-Christ government
> and religion. They will resist it. Even die doing so.
why not call the christian and missionary alliance church? they were
saying this stuff 40 years ago...of course they got it all wrong, but
you might get a discount on the literature...
wf3h
moron...the commerce clause WAS part of the original constitution
dumb as a bag of nails...
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>There would be a minority of leaders that
>could tell the majority of the population how to live, how to think,
>what to believe.
Which is, of course, what those in control of religion have always
done.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are indeed part of the problem and not the solution.
Burkhard
Don’t even go there! You know as well as I do, I’ve literally been
there, done that, bought the t-shirt and to be honest with you at the
end of the day when push comes to shove and it all boils down to it if
you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Know what I
mean? Basically, what I’m trying to say is with all due respect between
you and me, posting ill informed crap is not rocket science, it’s
about breaking the mold, thinking outside the box, giving it 110% 24/7.
And I think we can all agree clichés suck but, hey, it’s a job. You
gotta do what you gotta do. Just remember you’re writing for an audience
and there’s no “i” in . . . you get the picture
chris thompson
Actually, you introduced ancient history into this. The governmental
system you brought up initially (you know, the federal government with
such limited powers) was under the Articles of Confederation. Yeah,
that one that was such a dismal failure. The Constitution has _always_
accorded more power to the federal government than what you mentioned-
like the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power to wage war,
etc.
This whole bucket of steaming crap about states' rights is and always
has been a masquerade for racists, bigots, and haters of every stripe
so they can hide behind a veneer of respectability while they lynch,
rape, drag, or otherwise abuse some minority. It's evil, plain and
simple.
> > and why stop at states? How is this different from the Texas Supreme
> > Court in Austin telling people in San Antonio what to do? Laws are
> > always about telling people what to do, that is pretty much their point.
>
> > >>> Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same
> > >>> ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
> > >> You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
>
> > > Yep. But thay want to put that court under the The European Court
WTF? Who thinks the US should be subordinate to the ECHR?
>
> > So the US is in Europe now, or signatory to the European convention of
> > Human rights? Nonsensical fantasy with no basis in reality.
>
> > >> Which is no
>
> > >>> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since
> > >>> you are atheist. But what will happen when the winds of change
> > >>> bring new attitudes within populations as we have seen happen all
> > >>> throughout history?
> > >> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does
> > >> nt make up its own laws.
>
> > > Someone makes up the laws.
>
> > The point stands. The few (in another> country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you
> > > always get so easily distracted from the point?
>
> > The point is that these states signed up voluntarily to a law, they now
> > abide by it. Nobody was forced to do anything. The Italians had as much
> > as a say as the Germans etc.
>
> If you were a doctor, you would treat the sympton while over looking
> tha cure.
The cure is to get religion out of any and all government actions,
properties, and behaviors. Alternatively, you could move to Iran,
where there's as much religion as anyone could possible want.
Chris
martin
> On Nov 3, 6:07 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 12:18 am, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
>>> values and culture?
>> Values such as bigotry and hypocrisy?
>>
>>> Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
>>> Italians,
>> Italians are still free to keep crucifixes in their religious schools,
>> churches, homes and on their person. There is no reason to display it
>> in a public school.
>
> You want to change an entire country's tradition that has been held by
> many people and their generations for thousands of years? Why? Because
> of a hand full of people, (that are not even from that country), claim
> their eyes may bleed if they see a cross anywhere in public?
Maybe the medical schools should go back to teaching leaches and "how to
amputate a limb in 30 seconds to prevent shock" from non anesthetized
patients.
Or maybe the miasma theory of disease.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not saying that you do not make some good points
But in all sincerity this type of decision is very dangerous waters to
be in. And historically, what ever happens in Europe usually makes
it's way to America.
All-seeing-I
The U.N.
> > > So the US is in Europe now, or signatory to the European convention of
> > > Human rights? Nonsensical fantasy with no basis in reality.
>
> > > >> Which is no
>
> > > >>> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since
> > > >>> you are atheist. But what will happen when the winds of change
> > > >>> bring new attitudes within populations as we have seen happen all
> > > >>> throughout history?
> > > >> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does
> > > >> nt make up its own laws.
>
> > > > Someone makes up the laws.
>
> > > The point stands. The few (in another> country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you
> > > > always get so easily distracted from the point?
>
> > > The point is that these states signed up voluntarily to a law, they now
> > > abide by it. Nobody was forced to do anything. The Italians had as much
> > > as a say as the Germans etc.
>
> > If you were a doctor, you would treat the sympton while over looking
> > tha cure.
>
> The cure is to get religion out of any and all government actions,
> properties, and behaviors. Alternatively, you could move to Iran,
> where there's as much religion as anyone could possible want.
>
> Chris
That is an inappropriate analogy. In Iran the religion allows the
government to exist. In America the government guarantees the religion
the right to exist.
But not anymore. Private citizens that help pay for the public
buildings are being told they cannot wear a cross in the buildings
that they help pay for. There is something wrong with that picture.
--
all seeing I
All-seeing-I
THAT would be you
chris thompson
No response?
>
> > This whole bucket of steaming crap about states' rights is and always
> > has been a masquerade for racists, bigots, and haters of every stripe
> > so they can hide behind a veneer of respectability while they lynch,
> > rape, drag, or otherwise abuse some minority. It's evil, plain and
> > simple.
No response?
>
> > > > and why stop at states? How is this different from the Texas Supreme
> > > > Court in Austin telling people in San Antonio what to do? Laws are
> > > > always about telling people what to do, that is pretty much their point.
>
> > > > >>> Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same
> > > > >>> ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
> > > > >> You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
>
> > > > > Yep. But thay want to put that court under the The European Court
>
> > WTF? Who thinks the US should be subordinate to the ECHR?
>
> The U.N.
Nonsense. The UN has its own human rights courts in The Hague. And
yes, we are technically (and we should be) subordinate to those- since
that's what we agreed to when we signed the UN Charter. In fact, the
US has always ignored the rulings of the UN courts when such rulings
found against us, but the US Govt has screamed bloody murder when
other nations blow off the same courts.
>
>
>
> > > > So the US is in Europe now, or signatory to the European convention of
> > > > Human rights? Nonsensical fantasy with no basis in reality.
>
> > > > >> Which is no
>
> > > > >>> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since
> > > > >>> you are atheist. But what will happen when the winds of change
> > > > >>> bring new attitudes within populations as we have seen happen all
> > > > >>> throughout history?
> > > > >> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does
> > > > >> nt make up its own laws.
>
> > > > > Someone makes up the laws.
>
> > > > The point stands. The few (in another> country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you
> > > > > always get so easily distracted from the point?
>
> > > > The point is that these states signed up voluntarily to a law, they now
> > > > abide by it. Nobody was forced to do anything. The Italians had as much
> > > > as a say as the Germans etc.
>
> > > If you were a doctor, you would treat the sympton while over looking
> > > tha cure.
>
> > The cure is to get religion out of any and all government actions,
> > properties, and behaviors. Alternatively, you could move to Iran,
> > where there's as much religion as anyone could possible want.
>
> > Chris
>
> That is an inappropriate analogy. In Iran the religion allows the
> government to exist. In America the government guarantees the religion
> the right to exist.
Indeed. However, some proponents of religion want more. They want
control over government.
>
> But not anymore. Private citizens that help pay for the public
> buildings are being told they cannot wear a cross in the buildings
> that they help pay for. There is something wrong with that picture.
First off, you are citing an extreme example. While the test of
marginal cases is valid in some instances, marginal cases are such for
a reason- they are not generally applicable. There ARE cases in which
wearing a cross in a government building is inappropriate. What if the
cross is a gang symbol? Do you think a teacher should be allowed to
wear a cross around his/her neck in front of a public school class of
30 kids? Yes? OK, what about an upside-down cross with a naked Jesus
with a ginormous erect schlong? Because that's what the Satanists will
demand, and they'll be right. Sorry, either thought picture is
distressing to me (although not equally).
So no, there's nothing at all wrong with the thing you're complaining
about. How about this: I pay taxes. In fact, I pay a lot of money in
taxes, and while I look for every legal mechanism to reduce my tax
burden, I don't begrudge a single penny, and in fact I think I (and
you, and almost everyone else in the USA) should pay a lot more in
taxes than we do. But suppose I want to get up in front of a class in
a government-run school and preach, oh, that Xenu brought humans to
earth 75 million years ago? How about instructing my students that the
Reverend Moon is actually the Son of God? Or that Yahweh ben Yahweh is
the Son of God?
The fact is that any state sanction of religion, even if it's allowing
a cross or Crucifix on the wall, is much more dangerous than banning
all religious symbols in government buildings like schools. I doubt
you even know what the phrase means, but we're not so far away from
"Magdeburg mercy" as you might expect.
Chris
John Wilkins
<87334ed9-c2cc-49eb...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Kari Tikkanen <ktik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm
> =====
> "Italy school crucifixes 'barred'
>
> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of
> crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
>
...
>
If we ban crucifixes, the vampires have won.
Burkhard
not what the ECHR decision says.
Burkhard
the other way round. The US has been there for decades, Europe is
catching up.
Burkhard
equivalent of the Judas goat - nothings better to get traveller to ther
castle than them believing they are protected.....
J. J. Lodder
Mjammie!
All kiddies found in schools at midnight will be fair game!
Righteousness at last.
Why should those fat priests have all the fun?
Jan
chris thompson
> In article
> <87334ed9-c2cc-49eb-81c5-afed4db3a...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm
> > =====
> > "Italy school crucifixes 'barred'
>
> > The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of
> > crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
>
> ...
>
> If we ban crucifixes, the vampires have won.
And that, dare I say, would suck.
Chris
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1j8o0b8.1d...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
> All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> File in the casus belli department:
>
>> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
>> Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.
>
Did he _really_ say that? <checks> Yes he did.
Damn but he's an ignorant little pig-fucker, isn't he?
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Vend
> On Nov 3, 6:07 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 12:18 am, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries
> > > values and culture?
>
> > Values such as bigotry and hypocrisy?
>
> > > Its not a secret that this means A LOT to
> > > Italians,
>
> > Italians are still free to keep crucifixes in their religious schools,
> > churches, homes and on their person. There is no reason to display it
> > in a public school.
>
> You want to change an entire country's tradition that has been held by
> many people and their generations for thousands of years?
What is the problem with changing traditions that have been held by
many people for thousands of years?
Even heard of slavery?
> The only way something like that can happen is if it can be enforced.
> A one world court, backed up by a one world currency, which will
> prevent you from buying or selling if you do not take the mark, would
> be enough to enforce the decisions of such a court. What will you
> atheist pukes do then?
I don't see any problem with an unified world legal system.
Do you like the idea of people keeping illegal funds in tax havens and
enjoying child prostitution in Southeast Asia?
> What will you do when you are forced to wear a religious symbol by a
> court? The bible calls this symbol the mark of the beast. What will
> you do when you can neither buy nor sell anything without joining this
> one world religion?
Ah, the Book of Revelation, probably wrtitten by somebody who was
mentally ill or on drugs, and lately included in the Bible.
I couldn't care less.
wf3h
> In article
> <87334ed9-c2cc-49eb-81c5-afed4db3a...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm
> > =====
> > "Italy school crucifixes 'barred'
>
> > The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of
> > crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
>
> ...
>
> If we ban crucifixes, the vampires have won.
this could lead to banning garlic...then pasta...then all italian
food. before you know it, the atheists would starve us to death...
J. J. Lodder
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:53:13 -0500, J. J. Lodder wrote
> (in article <1j8o0b8.1d...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>
> > All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > File in the casus belli department:
> >
> >> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
> >> Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.
> >
>
> Did he _really_ say that? <checks> Yes he did.
>
> Damn but he's an ignorant little pig-fucker, isn't he?
Or just another Nazi-sympathiser.
Too dumb even for that, I guess,
Jan
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1j8rgx1.6o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
Well, he's almost as intellectually honest as you are.
chris thompson
The FSM would never allow it.
Chris
All-Seeing-I
wrote:[]
> > The U.N.
>
> Nonsense. The UN has its own human rights courts in The Hague. And
> yes, we are technically (and we should be) subordinate to those- since
> that's what we agreed to when we signed the UN Charter. In fact, the
> US has always ignored the rulings of the UN courts when such rulings
> found against us, but the US Govt has screamed bloody murder when
> other nations blow off the same courts.
Why not throw the constitution out while you are at it?
>
> > That is an inappropriate analogy. In Iran the religion allows the
> > government to exist. In America the government guarantees the religion
> > the right to exist.
>
> Indeed. However, some proponents of religion want more. They want
> control over government.
Which really has nothing to do with the issue.
Magdeburg mercy? And you think I use an extreme example?
Look. I'm not saying government should allow crosses on the walls or
support a specific religion. But a personal piece of jewelery is
rather benign. Telling people what they can ware with laws is a
cancer. It will grow out of control until we see a law controlling
everything. Do you want your grandchildren living in a world where the
very choice of clothing and accessories to that clothing are
regulated?
Where will it stop? It won't. Because there will always be someone
somewhere that will be offended over something. Should we pass laws
for each and every person that cries something offends them?
In this case we have an entire country's population effected because
one person was offended by a personal item. The key word here is
"personal". It is not like the person in question wanted a cross
removed from a wall. They want it removed from someone's person. That
is a big difference. What if someone is offended by brown open toe
shoes next? Should we ban all brown open toed shoes?
Now, as far as gangs and crosses in schools are concerned, well, that
is what a school dress code is for. A dress code imposed on children
for safety and other reasons is a far cry from a law that mandates an
entire adult population of a country not ware piece of jewelry
anywhere they go.
Burkhard
> On Nov 5, 10:15 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> Where will it stop? It won't. Because there will always be someone
> somewhere that will be offended over something. Should we pass laws
> for each and every person that cries something offends them?
>
> In this case we have an entire country's population effected because
> one person was offended by a personal item. The key word here is
> "personal". It is not like the person in question wanted a cross
> removed from a wall. They want it removed from someone's person. That
> is a big difference. What if someone is offended by brown open toe
> shoes next? Should we ban all brown open toed shoes?
In _which_ case? Not the case the European Court of Human Rights
decided with respect to Italy. This was only on the mandatory display
of crosses by the School in public school buildings:
"The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where
individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to
observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education,
where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and
where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils. "
"The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises
used by the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to
educate their children in conformity with their convictions."
>
> Now, as far as gangs and crosses in schools are concerned, well, that
> is what a school dress code is for. A dress code imposed on children
> for safety and other reasons is a far cry from a law that mandates an
> entire adult population of a country not ware piece of jewelry
> anywhere they go.
Again, which law are you talking about?
Walter Bushell
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> ot really. It all started in the Netherlands
> (the first bourgeois republic in moderen times, 1572)
> where they invented things like freedom of religion,
> freedom of the press, etc.
> (all more or less, for people who didn't make
> to much of a nuisance of themselves)
It was a *bourgeois* republic after all. It turns out those freedoms
were good for business. Why deprive yourself, for example, of the best
artisans because they had the wrong religion? When they started
interfering with business they, of course had to go.
> The French Enlightenment followed,
> and the Americans took their cues from both,
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Desertphile
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article
> <87334ed9-c2cc-49eb...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Kari Tikkanen <ktik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm
> > =====
> > "Italy school crucifixes 'barred'
> >
> > The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of
> > crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
> If we ban crucifixes, the vampires have won.
Have wooden stakes been banned?! Damn: what am I going to do with
all these pointed sticks? And all this blessed holy water....
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
heekster
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:53:13 -0500, J. J. Lodder wrote
>(in article <1j8o0b8.1d...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>
>> All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> File in the casus belli department:
>>
>>> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
>>> Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.
>>
>
>Did he _really_ say that? <checks> Yes he did.
>
>Damn but he's an ignorant little pig-fucker, isn't he?
He might be using the 1941 map of Germany.
Hatunen
Woosh...
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Oy, have you got the wrong vampire.
Burkhard
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Indeed - and there was me wondering if it was too obvious ;o)
J. J. Lodder
> In article <1j8ocv3.uv...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > ot really. It all started in the Netherlands
> > (the first bourgeois republic in moderen times, 1572)
> > where they invented things like freedom of religion,
> > freedom of the press, etc.
> > (all more or less, for people who didn't make
> > to much of a nuisance of themselves)
>
> It was a *bourgeois* republic after all. It turns out those freedoms
> were good for business. Why deprive yourself, for example, of the best
> artisans because they had the wrong religion? When they started
> interfering with business they, of course had to go.
I have no idea what you might have had in mind
when writing that last sentence.
There are other means too, of course.
There was a group of religious fanatics
(calling themselves the pilgrim fathers)
who left in disgust
because they couldn't stand the sight
of religious tolerance being practiced.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:42:25 -0500, J. J. Lodder wrote
> (in article <1j8rgx1.6o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>
> > J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:53:13 -0500, J. J. Lodder wrote
> >> (in article <1j8o0b8.1d...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
> >>
> >>> All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> File in the casus belli department:
> >>>
> >>>> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
> >>>> Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Did he _really_ say that? <checks> Yes he did.
> >>
> >> Damn but he's an ignorant little pig-fucker, isn't he?
> >
> > Or just another Nazi-sympathiser.
> > Too dumb even for that, I guess,
> >
> > Jan
> >
>
> Well, he's almost as intellectually honest as you are.
Oh, it's you again.
Any excuse for a lame attempt to try picking a quarrel will do, eh?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
chris thompson
> On Nov 5, 10:15 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:> On Nov 5, 9:18 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> []
>
> > > The U.N.
>
> > Nonsense. The UN has its own human rights courts in The Hague. And
> > yes, we are technically (and we should be) subordinate to those- since
> > that's what we agreed to when we signed the UN Charter. In fact, the
> > US has always ignored the rulings of the UN courts when such rulings
> > found against us, but the US Govt has screamed bloody murder when
> > other nations blow off the same courts.
>
> Why not throw the constitution out while you are at it?
Dude, I am the one following the constitution. The US Constitution
clearly states that the highest law of the land is twofold: there is
the US Constitution, and _equal to the Constitution in all regards_
are international treaties.
> > > That is an inappropriate analogy. In Iran the religion allows the
> > > government to exist. In America the government guarantees the religion
> > > the right to exist.
>
> > Indeed. However, some proponents of religion want more. They want
> > control over government.
>
> Which really has nothing to do with the issue.
Which has everything to do with the issue. Saying a particular
religion has a right to hang its symbols in government buildings is
religion exerting control over government.
Yes, I do. I have ample evidence from the last 400 years of western
civilization that religious wars are damned near constant, among the
bloodiest of wars, and precipitate brutality on unprecedented scales.
There are exceptions of course- nothing is universal. But if you
believe you're fighting for God and Your Immortal Soul, all of a
sudden you can be convinced to do damned near anything your religious
leaders demand of you.
>
> Look. I'm not saying government should allow crosses on the walls or
> support a specific religion. But a personal piece of jewelery is
> rather benign. Telling people what they can ware with laws is a
> cancer. It will grow out of control until we see a law controlling
> everything. Do you want your grandchildren living in a world where the
> very choice of clothing and accessories to that clothing are
> regulated?
And that is the extreme example to which I was referring. It is only
in very rare cases that crosses and crucifixes are banned in public
schools. I wholeheartedly agree that personal jewelry is benign in
most cases. I trust you will agree that when worn in an aggressive
fashion it can be regulated (as in the gang example I brought up). But
if a student of any age was told he/she could not wear a cross, or
star of David, of crescent, to school as an expression of religious
devotion, I would support the ACLU when they dragged the school board
into court. Because then, don't you see, the school is discriminating.
>
> Where will it stop? It won't. Because there will always be someone
> somewhere that will be offended over something. Should we pass laws
> for each and every person that cries something offends them?
Depends on the nature of the offense. As someone here rightly pointed
out, the speech that needs the most protection is generally the most
offensive. Do you support a constitutional amendment banning flag-
burning?
>
> In this case we have an entire country's population effected because
> one person was offended by a personal item. The key word here is
> "personal". It is not like the person in question wanted a cross
> removed from a wall. They want it removed from someone's person. That
> is a big difference. What if someone is offended by brown open toe
> shoes next? Should we ban all brown open toed shoes?
>
Um no. The court case in Italy was EXACTLY about removing a cross from
a school room wall. Didn't you read the article?
> Now, as far as gangs and crosses in schools are concerned, well, that
> is what a school dress code is for. A dress code imposed on children
> for safety and other reasons is a far cry from a law that mandates an
> entire adult population of a country not ware piece of jewelry
> anywhere they go.
But not all schools have, or need, a dress code. But they should be
able to ban gang symbols.
Chris
John Wilkins
<hat...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:40:36 -0500, John Wilkins
> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><87334ed9-c2cc-49eb...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >Kari Tikkanen <ktik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm
> >> =====
> >> "Italy school crucifixes 'barred'
> >>
> >> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of
> >> crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
> >>
> >...
> >>
> >If we ban crucifixes, the vampires have won.
>
> Oy, have you got the wrong vampire.
Have you ever heard of a Jewish vampire? Besides, all the right
crucifixes are made from bacon.
chris thompson
> On Nov 6, 9:50 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 10:15 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:> On Nov 5, 9:18 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > []
>
> > > > The U.N.
>
> > > Nonsense. The UN has its own human rights courts in The Hague. And
> > > yes, we are technically (and we should be) subordinate to those- since
> > > that's what we agreed to when we signed the UN Charter. In fact, the
> > > US has always ignored the rulings of the UN courts when such rulings
> > > found against us, but the US Govt has screamed bloody murder when
> > > other nations blow off the same courts.
>
> > Why not throw the constitution out while you are at it?
>
> Dude, I am the one following the constitution. The US Constitution
> clearly states that the highest law of the land is twofold: there is
> the US Constitution, and _equal to the Constitution in all regards_
> are international treaties.
Just so's there's no doubt about this, here is Article Six of the US
Constitution (the relevant part):
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."
Chris
snip
chris thompson
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:40:36 -0500, John Wilkins
>
> >In article
> ><87334ed9-c2cc-49eb-81c5-afed4db3a...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm
> >> =====
> >> "Italy school crucifixes 'barred'
>
> >> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of
> >> crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
>
> >...
>
> >If we ban crucifixes, the vampires have won.
>
> Oy, have you got the wrong vampire.
>
> --
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Was I imagining things or was Sharon Tate really 99% topless in that
scene where she's running from the vampires? I was about 15 when I saw
it so I was probably suffering from testosterone blindness (i.e., I
saw boobs everywhere) but doggone I swear her tits were right out of
that flimsy dress she was wearing.
Chris
Hatunen
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, I do. I have ample evidence from the last 400 years of western
>civilization that religious wars are damned near constant, among the
>bloodiest of wars, and precipitate brutality on unprecedented scales.
>There are exceptions of course- nothing is universal. But if you
>believe you're fighting for God and Your Immortal Soul, all of a
>sudden you can be convinced to do damned near anything your religious
>leaders demand of you.
Lets not forget the Crusades of nearly a millenium ago. These
were wars of religion, and the consequences are still causing
trouble for the Western World, even though it lost.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
Hatunen
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Nov 6, 9:37 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:22:33 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 5, 6:25 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
>> >> Don’t even go there! You know as well as I do, I’ve literally been
>> >> there, done that, bought the t-shirt and to be honest with you at the
>> >> end of the day when push comes to shove and it all boils down to it if
>> >> you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Know what I
>> >> mean? Basically, what I’m trying to say is with all due respect between
>> >> you and me, posting ill informed crap is not rocket science, it’s
>> >> about breaking the mold, thinking outside the box, giving it 110% 24/7.
>> >> And I think we can all agree clichés suck but, hey, it’s a job. You
>> >> gotta do what you gotta do. Just remember you’re writing for an audience
>> >> and there’s no “i” in . . . you get the picture- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >I'm not saying that you do not make some good points
>>
>> >But in all sincerity this type of decision is very dangerous waters to
>> >be in. And historically, what ever happens in Europe usually makes
>> >it's way to America.
>>
>> Woosh...
>
>Indeed - and there was me wondering if it was too obvious ;o)
Good satire is always at risk of being taken seriously.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
All-seeing-I
> On Nov 6, 9:50 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 10:15 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:> On Nov 5, 9:18 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > []
>
> > > > The U.N.
>
> > > Nonsense. The UN has its own human rights courts in The Hague. And
> > > yes, we are technically (and we should be) subordinate to those- since
> > > that's what we agreed to when we signed the UN Charter. In fact, the
> > > US has always ignored the rulings of the UN courts when such rulings
> > > found against us, but the US Govt has screamed bloody murder when
> > > other nations blow off the same courts.
>
> > Why not throw the constitution out while you are at it?
>
> Dude, I am the one following the constitution. The US Constitution
> clearly states that the highest law of the land is twofold: there is
> the US Constitution, and _equal to the Constitution in all regards_
> are international treaties.
international treaties? Are you outa your mind?
>
> > > > That is an inappropriate analogy. In Iran the religion allows the
> > > > government to exist. In America the government guarantees the religion
> > > > the right to exist.
>
> > > Indeed. However, some proponents of religion want more. They want
> > > control over government.
>
> > Which really has nothing to do with the issue.
>
> Which has everything to do with the issue. Saying a particular
> religion has a right to hang its symbols in government buildings is
> religion exerting control over government.
>
This was about a cross on a person, not a building IIRC
Well I do agree with this, Religion has been misused to do some
terible things,. But so has science. Can we all say "Nuclear Bombs"?
>
> > Look. I'm not saying government should allow crosses on the walls or
> > support a specific religion. But a personal piece of jewelery is
> > rather benign. Telling people what they can ware with laws is a
> > cancer. It will grow out of control until we see a law controlling
> > everything. Do you want your grandchildren living in a world where the
> > very choice of clothing and accessories to that clothing are
> > regulated?
>
> And that is the extreme example to which I was referring. It is only
> in very rare cases that crosses and crucifixes are banned in public
> schools. I wholeheartedly agree that personal jewelry is benign in
> most cases. I trust you will agree that when worn in an aggressive
> fashion it can be regulated (as in the gang example I brought up). But
> if a student of any age was told he/she could not wear a cross, or
> star of David, of crescent, to school as an expression of religious
> devotion, I would support the ACLU when they dragged the school board
> into court. Because then, don't you see, the school is discriminating.
>
You are straining a fly with a straw. Or killing a gnat with a sledge
happer here.
>
> > Where will it stop? It won't. Because there will always be someone
> > somewhere that will be offended over something. Should we pass laws
> > for each and every person that cries something offends them?
>
> Depends on the nature of the offense. As someone here rightly pointed
> out, the speech that needs the most protection is generally the most
> offensive. Do you support a constitutional amendment banning flag-
> burning?
No. I don't. If someone is pissed off enough to burn the flag then I
wanna know what they are pissed off about. If you ban such things you
will never know.
>
> > In this case we have an entire country's population effected because
> > one person was offended by a personal item. The key word here is
> > "personal". It is not like the person in question wanted a cross
> > removed from a wall. They want it removed from someone's person. That
> > is a big difference. What if someone is offended by brown open toe
> > shoes next? Should we ban all brown open toed shoes?
>
> Um no. The court case in Italy was EXACTLY about removing a cross from
> a school room wall. Didn't you read the article?
No. I misunderstood.
But that changes nothing. A cross is meaningless to anyone that does
not believe in the principals behind the cross.
> > Now, as far as gangs and crosses in schools are concerned, well, that
> > is what a school dress code is for. A dress code imposed on children
> > for safety and other reasons is a far cry from a law that mandates an
> > entire adult population of a country not ware piece of jewelry
> > anywhere they go.
>
> But not all schools have, or need, a dress code. But they should be
> able to ban gang symbols.
By telling people what they can and cannot wear?
no
wf3h
> On Nov 6, 4:51 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> >
> > Yes, I do. I have ample evidence from the last 400 years of western
> > civilization that religious wars are damned near constant, among the
> > bloodiest of wars, and precipitate brutality on unprecedented scales.
> > There are exceptions of course- nothing is universal. But if you
> > believe you're fighting for God and Your Immortal Soul, all of a
> > sudden you can be convinced to do damned near anything your religious
> > leaders demand of you.
>
> Well I do agree with this, Religion has been misused to do some
> terible things,. But so has science. Can we all say "Nuclear Bombs"?
science has no morality so can't be 'misused' by definition. science
is a statement about nature. saying science is 'misused' is like
saying green is 'misused.'
such a statement has no meaning
OTOH, religion, because its raison d'etre IS morality can be
'misused'.' of course, given the roller coaster ride of chrisitanity
and islam wrt morality, it's an open point as to whether these
religions are misused or whether they're just evil
>
> > Um no. The court case in Italy was EXACTLY about removing a cross from
> > a school room wall. Didn't you read the article?
>
> No. I misunderstood.
>
> But that changes nothing. A cross is meaningless to anyone that does
> not believe in the principals behind the cross.
hmmm...so a hammer and sickle is meaningless to non communists?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1j8ro0m.1ca...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:42:25 -0500, J. J. Lodder wrote
>> (in article <1j8rgx1.6o...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>>
>>> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:53:13 -0500, J. J. Lodder wrote
>>>> (in article <1j8o0b8.1d...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>>>>
>>>>> All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> File in the casus belli department:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
>>>>>> Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did he _really_ say that? <checks> Yes he did.
>>>>
>>>> Damn but he's an ignorant little pig-fucker, isn't he?
>>>
>>> Or just another Nazi-sympathiser.
>>> Too dumb even for that, I guess,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>> Well, he's almost as intellectually honest as you are.
>
> Oh, it's you again.
> Any excuse for a lame attempt to try picking a quarrel will do, eh?
>
It wasn't _me_ who tried (and failed) to be snarky...
Burkhard
sense woudl dictate - in this case, the SCOTUS precedents go in the
other way. See in particular Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998),which
affirmed that Senate ratified treaty may be overridden by a later
domestic statute enacted by mere majorities in each house of Congress.
The US was always a "dualist" jurisdiction with regards to international
law, and in cases like this it shows.
J. J. Lodder
In short, the USA is an unreliable party to treaties,
in particular treaties that the next president may dislike,
Jan
Sapient Fridge
<8d589d4a-838f-4314...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
>There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of
>Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside
>entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has
>lived for a couple thousands of years.
It's not a "couple thousands of year", the web site that was quoted
clearly says:
"The law requiring crucifixes to be hung in schools dates back to the
1920s. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8340411.stm
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Burkhard
The UK is in this sense in a worse position: "Parliament can't bind
Parliament" is one of the first principles of constitutional law. So
in theory, Parliament could revoke e.g. the independence granted to
Canada in the Statute of Westminster - what the Canadians would say
about this is of course another matter, somehow I feel it would not
be: "Fair enough"....
Hatunen
Republican sentiment seems to be rising in Canada, and I suspect
most Canadians wouldn't be terribly unhappy if Canada did a
Rhodesia. Certainly the Quebecois have no love of the Queen as
their monarch.
Hatunen
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 6, 4:51 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 9:50 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 5, 10:15 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:> On Nov 5, 9:18 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > []
>>
>> > > > The U.N.
>>
>> > > Nonsense. The UN has its own human rights courts in The Hague. And
>> > > yes, we are technically (and we should be) subordinate to those- since
>> > > that's what we agreed to when we signed the UN Charter. In fact, the
>> > > US has always ignored the rulings of the UN courts when such rulings
>> > > found against us, but the US Govt has screamed bloody murder when
>> > > other nations blow off the same courts.
>>
>> > Why not throw the constitution out while you are at it?
>>
>> Dude, I am the one following the constitution. The US Constitution
>> clearly states that the highest law of the land is twofold: there is
>> the US Constitution, and _equal to the Constitution in all regards_
>> are international treaties.
>
> international treaties? Are you outa your mind?
That's what the Constitution says, and will continue to say no
matter how many unbelieving ourbursts you make.
>> > > > That is an inappropriate analogy. In Iran the religion allows the
>> > > > government to exist. In America the government guarantees the religion
>> > > > the right to exist.
>>
>> > > Indeed. However, some proponents of religion want more. They want
>> > > control over government.
>>
>> > Which really has nothing to do with the issue.
>>
>> Which has everything to do with the issue. Saying a particular
>> religion has a right to hang its symbols in government buildings is
>> religion exerting control over government.
>>
>
>This was about a cross on a person, not a building IIRC
You do not recall correctly. It's about crosses on the walls of
classrooms.
Do you really believe that's an apt analogy? And what is there
specifically in religion that forbids war and abuse? Certainly
the Old Testament indulges in those things. god even encourages
war and genocide and teh taking of lands already belonging to
someone else.
>> > Look. I'm not saying government should allow crosses on the walls or
>> > support a specific religion. But a personal piece of jewelery is
>> > rather benign. Telling people what they can ware with laws is a
>> > cancer. It will grow out of control until we see a law controlling
>> > everything. Do you want your grandchildren living in a world where the
>> > very choice of clothing and accessories to that clothing are
>> > regulated?
>>
>> And that is the extreme example to which I was referring. It is only
>> in very rare cases that crosses and crucifixes are banned in public
>> schools. I wholeheartedly agree that personal jewelry is benign in
>> most cases. I trust you will agree that when worn in an aggressive
>> fashion it can be regulated (as in the gang example I brought up). But
>> if a student of any age was told he/she could not wear a cross, or
>> star of David, of crescent, to school as an expression of religious
>> devotion, I would support the ACLU when they dragged the school board
>> into court. Because then, don't you see, the school is discriminating.
>>
>You are straining a fly with a straw. Or killing a gnat with a sledge
>happer here.
Actually he's talking about things that have actually been
happening. There are cases going on where schoolkids are being
ordered not to wear religious symbols. Don't you keep up on these
things?
>>
>> > Where will it stop? It won't. Because there will always be someone
>> > somewhere that will be offended over something. Should we pass laws
>> > for each and every person that cries something offends them?
>>
>> Depends on the nature of the offense. As someone here rightly pointed
>> out, the speech that needs the most protection is generally the most
>> offensive. Do you support a constitutional amendment banning flag-
>> burning?
>
>No. I don't. If someone is pissed off enough to burn the flag then I
>wanna know what they are pissed off about. If you ban such things you
>will never know.
>
>>
>> > In this case we have an entire country's population effected because
>> > one person was offended by a personal item. The key word here is
>> > "personal". It is not like the person in question wanted a cross
>> > removed from a wall. They want it removed from someone's person. That
>> > is a big difference. What if someone is offended by brown open toe
>> > shoes next? Should we ban all brown open toed shoes?
>>
>> Um no. The court case in Italy was EXACTLY about removing a cross from
>> a school room wall. Didn't you read the article?
>
>No. I misunderstood.
>
>But that changes nothing. A cross is meaningless to anyone that does
>not believe in the principals behind the cross.
But posting it on school walls sends a signal to non-Christians
that they are outsiders in that school and that the school is a
Christain school.
>> > Now, as far as gangs and crosses in schools are concerned, well, that
>> > is what a school dress code is for. A dress code imposed on children
>> > for safety and other reasons is a far cry from a law that mandates an
>> > entire adult population of a country not ware piece of jewelry
>> > anywhere they go.
>>
>> But not all schools have, or need, a dress code. But they should be
>> able to ban gang symbols.
>
>By telling people what they can and cannot wear?
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the banning of gang symbols on free
speech grounds, but I do realize that it may be a necessary evil.
Minors don't have unlimited rights, after all. For instance, we
legally force them to go to school.
But school uniforms seem like a pretty neutral thing to do. My
daughter is in 6th grade here and has been going to public
schools that require uniforms. It's not as drastic as some UK
school uniform rules, and she's allowed to wear thigns that are
dark blue, white, or khaki. She usually wears dark blue slacks,
or skirt, or culottes with a white shirt.