7th Circuit Court ruling
Carol Lee Smith
jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, ruled that a monument
of the Judeo-Christian Decalogue in front of the Elkhart, Indiana
municipal building violated the Establishment Clause (separation of church
and state. state.) The 7th Circuit justices found that attempts to
declare the religious monument a secular memorial failed, and they ordered
the case remanded "for proceedings in conformity with this opinion."
There is a similar unconstitutional monument on public property adjacent
to Milwaukee's City Hall. Like the Elkhart monument, it was also a
donation from the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The outcome of the Indiana
ruling is likely to affect other such unconstitutional decalogues in the
7th circuit.
----------
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the
winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is
perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an
impartial guardian of the rule of law."
-- JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Supreme Court justice.
Mike
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100121...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> There is a similar unconstitutional monument on public property adjacent
> to Milwaukee's City Hall. Like the Elkhart monument, it was also a
> donation from the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The outcome of the Indiana
> ruling is likely to affect other such unconstitutional decalogues in the
> 7th circuit.
You are a jewel, Carol, it doesn't offend you what's going on "in" City Hall
but you get all worked up over a hunk of rock across the street from City
Hall....
Carol Lee Smith
If by "what's going on 'in' City Hall" you are making reference to the
philandering which Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist has admitted, I will
leave that to you.
If you loose sleep over the escapades of others, it is all yours.
I am much more concerned about unconstitutional religious monuments on
public property than about the adulterous affairs of public figures.
------------------
Mike
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100121...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Mike wrote:
>
> > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100121...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> > > There is a similar unconstitutional monument on public property
adjacent
> > > to Milwaukee's City Hall. Like the Elkhart monument, it was also a
> > > donation from the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The outcome of the
Indiana
> > > ruling is likely to affect other such unconstitutional decalogues in
the
> > > 7th circuit.
>
> > You are a jewel, Carol, it doesn't offend you what's going on "in" City
Hall
> > but you get all worked up over a hunk of rock across the street from
City
> > Hall....
>
> If by "what's going on 'in' City Hall" you are making reference to the
> philandering which Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist has admitted, I will
> leave that to you.
I'm talking about the potential lawsuit's against the City of Milwaukee that
the Mayor's philandering may cause.... or the sexual harassment that is
alleged to have gone on..... or the discrimination that is alleged to have
gone on...... not to mention how Milwaukee looks in the eyes of the nation.
>
> If you loose sleep over the escapades of others, it is all yours.
>
> I am much more concerned about unconstitutional religious monuments on
> public property than about the adulterous affairs of public figures.
Yet you lose sleep over some art.....
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Mike wrote:
> > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100121...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > > > There is a similar unconstitutional monument on public property
adjacent to Milwaukee's City Hall. Like the Elkhart monument, it was also a
donation from the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The outcome of the
Indiana ruling is likely to affect other such unconstitutional decalogues in
the 7th circuit.> >
> > > You are a jewel, Carol, it doesn't offend you what's going on "in" City
> Hall
> > > but you get all worked up over a hunk of rock across the street from
> City Hall....
> > If by "what's going on 'in' City Hall" you are making reference to the
> > philandering which Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist has admitted, I will
> > leave that to you.
> I'm talking about the potential lawsuit's against the City of Milwaukee that
> the Mayor's philandering may cause.... or the sexual harassment that is
> alleged to have gone on..... or the discrimination that is alleged to have
> gone on...... not to mention how Milwaukee looks in the eyes of the nation.
I jdo believe that the illegal, unconstitutional monument opn public
property is a Constitutional matter.
The adultery of the mayor is not a Constitutional matter.
I will leave it for you to worry about.
> > If you loose sleep over the escapades of others, it is all yours.
> > I am much more concerned about unconstitutional religious monuments on
> > public property than about the adulterous affairs of public figures.
>
> Yet you lose sleep over some art.....
Art belongs in museums. We are not talking about "art" here. We are
talking about an unconstitutional display of religion. We are talking
about the promotion of monotheism by city government.
The government is to remain neutral in matters of religion. Why is that
so hard for you to understand. Or is it that you understand it and
disagree with it?
Freedom of religion so long as its YOUR religion?
------------------------
In 1555, the sage Nostradamus wrote: 'Come the millennium, month 12, in
the home of the greatest power, the village idiot will come forth to be
acclaimed the leader.'
Mike
So you don't mind Milwaukee taxpayer's getting screwed because the Mayor got
screwed.....
>
> I will leave it for you to worry about.
>
> > > If you loose sleep over the escapades of others, it is all yours.
>
> > > I am much more concerned about unconstitutional religious monuments on
> > > public property than about the adulterous affairs of public figures.
> >
> > Yet you lose sleep over some art.....
>
> Art belongs in museums. We are not talking about "art" here. We are
> talking about an unconstitutional display of religion. We are talking
> about the promotion of monotheism by city government.
So why don't you start a campaign to get that ugly orange thing at the end
of Wisconsin Avenue removed as it belongs in a museum?
>
> The government is to remain neutral in matters of religion. Why is that
> so hard for you to understand. Or is it that you understand it and
> disagree with it?
Who says it's difficult for me to understand..... I understand your
seperatist views.... I said that in a post recently....
the exact quote was....
"I understand your separation views... I really do. I just don't agree with
them. Do you understand my views on School Choice? I'm not asking you to
agree with me... just understand me."
It seems to me that you think I'm all bent out of shape on this subject....
but I really am not. It doesn't matter to me if there is a religious statue
in a public place or not.... as it doesn't offend me nor am I a strong
advocate of it. It's not a battle that I choose to fight as I do not
believe that in the big picture of things...... fighting over an icon is
worth the time and effort. Now, if the government came in and said.....
"Everyone must believe that there is a God".... I would actually have a
problem with that.... probably to your dismay. My feeling toward Athiests
is actual disgust in their seemingly intolerance to those who do believe.
I accept your decision not to believe and respect that decision. Why can't
you do the same? This country was founded on people seeking relief from
religious perscecution.... which is ironic as you keep running back to the
Constitution for everything. I think society as a whole would accept your
beliefs more openly if you would not nitpick over little things like a
statue. I understand you do not see it as a "little thing".... but the
majority of us do.
>
> Freedom of religion so long as its YOUR religion?
That's exactly what I am accusing you of.... which is ironic.... as I
believe the absence of religion is a form of belief.... so you preaching "No
Religion" is the same as someone "Preaching Religion"...
> ------------------------
> In 1555, the sage Nostradamus wrote: 'Come the millennium, month 12, in
> the home of the greatest power, the village idiot will come forth to be
> acclaimed the leader.'
>
Thank God Nader didn't get elected so this didn't become true....
;-)
Brad F
Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100121...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> In 1555, the sage Nostradamus wrote: 'Come the millennium, month 12, in
> the home of the greatest power, the village idiot will come forth to be
> acclaimed the leader.'
Where did you find this? I searched around for it, but couldn't find it.
Brad F
Mike <mi...@m2technical.com> wrote in message
news:t3t0eho...@corp.supernews.com...
> problem with that.... probably to your dismay. My feeling toward
Athiests
> is actual disgust in their seemingly intolerance to those who do believe.
> I accept your decision not to believe and respect that decision.
Yet you hold athiests in disgust?
>
> That's exactly what I am accusing you of.... which is ironic.... as I
> believe the absence of religion is a form of belief.... so you preaching
"No
> Religion" is the same as someone "Preaching Religion"...
If I don't teach you that black holes exist, does that mean I'm telling you
that they don't exist? If I say nothing, and your parents say they do
exist. If I say they do, and your parents say they don't? The reason I'm
using black holes is they are therotical.
Oh, and BTW, not all Athiests are Carol, but I knew you knew that, just
bringing it up to be offical. :)
Nancy
> The outcome of the Indiana
>ruling is likely to affect other such unconstitutional decalogues in the
>7th circuit.
And I bet you're just about wettin' your pants with glee!
Nancy
Face it. This was a tie and Bush won the tiebreaker. Give it a rest and lets
move on.--Tuck, alias SecretDoc
Nancy
>I am much more concerned about unconstitutional religious monuments on
>public property than about the adulterous affairs of public figures.
Yeah, those "unconstitutional" monuments are really hurting other people.
Meanwhile, a high public official having an affair doesn't affect anyone.
And then we wonder why our society seems to have it's priorities screwed up????
Nancy
>I jdo(sic) believe that the illegal, unconstitutional monument opn(sic) public
>property is a Constitutional matter.
Please tell me who gets harmed by a monument that has been placed years and
years ago. Can you document the trauma someone has experienced by this monument
being there?
>The adultery of the mayor is not a Constitutional matter.
You weren't really bothered by the unconstitutional actions of the Florida
Supreme Court a few weeks ago.
>We are talking
>about the promotion of monotheism by city government.
Define "promotion" in light of a monument standing on some ground near the City
Hall please.
>The government is to remain neutral in matters of religion.
If that's what this is about, it'd be fine. But I get the impression, what you
are really interested in is wiping any signs of religion from any public
property anywhere, as if it coerces people to start to believe. Yes, yes, I
know......."prove it" Well, I can't. It's just an impression I get reading
your many, many anti-religion posts.
>Freedom of religion so long as its YOUR religion?
Freedom FROM religion, right? As long as there is NO religion?
Nancy
>If I don't teach you that black holes exist, does that mean I'm telling you
>that they don't exist? If I say nothing, and your parents say they do
>exist. If I say they do, and your parents say they don't?
Does posting a picture of a black hole in a public place force you to believe
there are black holes?
Nancy
>> In 1555, the sage Nostradamus wrote: 'Come the millennium, month 12, in
>> the home of the greatest power, the village idiot will come forth to be
>> acclaimed the leader.'
>
>Where did you find this? I searched around for it, but couldn't find it.
Probably doesn't exist. Just another fine example of Carols' "tolerance" and
respect for other people's religion!
Somas
and promoting any one religion over others as an official state religion.
It does not mean rooting out and smashing any expression of religion as that
is de facto support of atheism, which is another form of dogma.
From the Founders down to now, we have looked to a higher expression of the
human spirit, from a belief in a God/ethical system/or just an
acknowledgment that no one person has all answers. To allow an art work
with such a theme on a public building or land is recognition of our
tolerance of this concept, not establishment.
Try some tolerance as your approach smacks of the Red Guards in
China-mindless smashing in the name of anti this and anti that. When it was
over, they lost their future as well as their past, not to mention a few
million killed or starved in the process.
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
snip
Mike
"Brad F" <shoe...@repairman.com> wrote in message
news:3a3e8e54$0$75805$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>
> Mike <mi...@m2technical.com> wrote in message
> news:t3t0eho...@corp.supernews.com...
> > problem with that.... probably to your dismay. My feeling toward
> Athiests
> > is actual disgust in their seemingly intolerance to those who do
believe.
> > I accept your decision not to believe and respect that decision.
>
> Yet you hold athiests in disgust?
Because of the intolerance to those who do believe.... which is what I had
written.
>
> >
> > That's exactly what I am accusing you of.... which is ironic.... as I
> > believe the absence of religion is a form of belief.... so you preaching
> "No
> > Religion" is the same as someone "Preaching Religion"...
>
> If I don't teach you that black holes exist, does that mean I'm telling
you
> that they don't exist? If I say nothing, and your parents say they do
> exist. If I say they do, and your parents say they don't? The reason I'm
> using black holes is they are therotical.
However, using your same analogy, they DO teach that black holes exist.
>
> Oh, and BTW, not all Athiests are Carol, but I knew you knew that, just
> bringing it up to be offical. :)
>
Guess since I used the term Athiests... which is a plural term.... which
means more than one... than I suppose I couldn't just be referring to
Carol.... because Carol is singular.
buc...@exis.net
>:|The establishment clause was to prevent the US government from supporting
>:|and promoting any one religion over others as an official state religion.
Would you kindly cite where in the constitution it says the above?
The establishment clause did not create anything new, it reinforced what
had been created with the separation clause in the unamended constitution.
That was separation of church and state, breaking any unions or alliances
between religion and government.
You would be far more accurate had you just said it reinforced the
separation of church and state embodied in the unamended constitution. Thus
preventing the U S government from promoting, supporting, hindering,
helping, aiding, touching upon, etc. religion.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
Nancy
>>:|The establishment clause was to prevent the US government from supporting
>>:|and promoting any one religion over others as an official state religion.
>
>
>Would you kindly cite where in the constitution it says the above?
You do know that the constitution also does not say anything about separation
of church and state too?
Nancy
>You do know that the constitution also does not say anything about separation
>of church and state too?
>
What I meant to say, (had I not been rushing to get the dog in the house and
wiped off) was that it doesn't specifically use the words "separation of church
and state" in the constitution!
Carol Lee Smith
> The establishment clause was to prevent the US government from supporting
> and promoting any one religion over others as an official state religion.
> It does not mean rooting out and smashing any expression of religion as that
> is de facto support of atheism, which is another form of dogma.
This is the kind of nonsense promoted by David Barton and D. James
Kennedy. You misrepresent what "atheism" means. It is promotion of no
dogma. Neutrality in matters of religion does not equal atheism.
MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses were intended only to prevent
the establishment of a national church.
FACT: If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had
plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In
fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil
rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall
any national religion be established...." This draft was rejected.
Following extensive debate, the language found in the First Amendment
today was settled on.
The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First
Amendment to ban not only establishment of a single church but also
"multiple establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds
many religions on an equal basis.
A good overview of the development of the language of the First Amendment
is found in scholar John M. Swomley's 1987 book Religious Liberty and the
Secular State. Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives'
debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically
rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any
particular denomination in preference to another...." The founders wanted
to bar all religious establishments; they left no room for
"non-preferentialism," the view touted by today's accommodationists that
government can aid religion as long as it assists all religions equally.
(The Senate likewise rejected three versions of the First Amendment that
would have permitted non-preferential support for religion.)
> From the Founders down to now, we have looked to a higher expression of
> the human spirit, from a belief in a God/ethical system/or just an
> acknowledgment that no one person has all answers. To allow an art work
> with such a theme on a public building or land is recognition of our
> tolerance of this concept, not establishment.
I disagree.
The 10K are not posted as art work. They are posted to promote
monotheism. 70% of the contents of the 10K don't even have anything
to do with what we concern ourselves with in a court of law.
> Try some tolerance as your approach smacks of the Red Guards in
> China-mindless smashing in the name of anti this and anti that. When it
> was over, they lost their future as well as their past, not to mention a
> few million killed or starved in the process.
This is nonsense. Equating support for the Bill of Rights is not to be
equated with the Red Guards.
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> snip
> > The government is to remain neutral in matters of religion. Why is
> > that so hard for you to understand. Or is it that you understand it
> > and disagree with it?
> >
> > Freedom of religion so long as its YOUR religion?
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the
Carol Lee Smith
Nancy again trots out her old, tired argument when she says:
> You do know that the constitution also does not say anything about
> separation of church and state too?
MYTH: Separation of church and state is not in the U.S. Constitution.
FACT: It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state"
does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept
isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof...."
What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the
Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president,
declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected
a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious
liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)
Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the
post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison,
considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter,
"[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the
devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total
separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay
(probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the
separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the
United States."
As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church,
State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of
church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was
inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to
verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American
people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a
constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the
Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that
'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is
not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms,
including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would
seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American
democratic principles."
Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle
of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First
Amendment's religion clauses do-they separate church and state.
On 19 Dec
2000, Nancy wrote:
> >Reply-To: buc...@exis.net
>
> >>:|The establishment clause was to prevent the US government from supporting
> >>:|and promoting any one religion over others as an official state religion.
> >
> >
> >Would you kindly cite where in the constitution it says the above?
>
> You do know that the constitution also does not say anything about separation
> of church and state too?
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the
Carol Lee Smith
As lame as saying right to a fair trial is not in the Constitution.
As lame as saying "religious liberty" is not in the Constitution.
I repeat:
<<<As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church,
State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of
church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was
inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to
verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American
people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a
constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the
Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that
'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is
not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms,
including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would
seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American
democratic principles." >>>
On 19 Dec 2000, Nancy wrote:
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the
Carol Lee Smith
> >From: Carol Lee Smith hu...@csd.uwm.edu
> >I am much more concerned about unconstitutional religious monuments on
> >public property than about the adulterous affairs of public figures.
> Yeah, those "unconstitutional" monuments are really hurting other people.
> Meanwhile, a high public official having an affair doesn't affect anyone.
The illegal promotion of monotheism is apparently something of which you
approve. I say it is tyranny of the majority.
If you were of an alternative believe system, perhaps you might
understand.
Although that didn't do Lieberman any good.
> And then we wonder why our society seems to have it's [sic] priorities
> screwed up????
Down through history--early America--the Roman era--people have lamented
that society had its priorities screwed up. Also that the younger
generation was a mess. Pure Rhetoric.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that posting the 10K will
improve the "priorities" of society.
On the other hand, replacing the illegal promotion of monotheism with
neutrality benefits everyone.
Unless you approve of using your own particular dogma as a cudgel, rather
than something which is really, truly precious and sacred.
Nancy
>Even with this "clarification," it is a lame argument.
>
>As lame as saying right to a fair trial is not in the Constitution.
>
>As lame as saying "religious liberty" is not in the Constitution.
Carol, it was in reply to someone else who wanted something from the
Constituion "cited" as though if something were inferred (as the church and
state separation is) were not allowed. Apparently you missed the point while
getting all in a dither trying to prove your atheistic point.
Carol Lee Smith
> >From: Carol Lee Smith hu...@csd.uwm.edu
> >Even with this "clarification," it is a lame argument.
> >As lame as saying right to a fair trial is not in the Constitution.
> >As lame as saying "religious liberty" is not in the Constitution.
> Carol, it was in reply to someone else who wanted something from the
> Constituion "cited" as though if something were inferred (as the church and
> state separation is) were not allowed. Apparently you missed the point while
> getting all in a dither trying to prove your atheistic point.
The point that certain phrases are not in the Constitution is not an
"atheistic point."
The cite requested was:
>>The establishment clause was to prevent the US government from
>>supporting and promoting any one religion over others as an official
>>state religion.
>Would you kindly cite where in the constitution it says the above?
The person made a lame claim about the establishment clause. Your claim
that the phrase "separation of church and state" (and I am paraphrasing
here) is not in the Constitution doesn't satisfy the request for a
cite of where in the Constitition it DOES SAY SOMETHING ........ see
above.
---------------
As a child I had not thought of this at all. Then, the message was
entirely different. I grew up in a historically oppressed (racially),
economically poor, rural black Southern community where Christmas was the
only time it was possible to collectively celebrate the only generous and
cheerful white man anyone in the community was ever likely to know: Santa
Claus. This was done with such enthusiasm and tenderness--and Santa's
rosy cheeks were described with such bemused accuracy--that as a
three-year-old one Christmas morning, I announced I'd actually seen him
the night before, as he stole about the house, sampling the pies and cakes
my mother always made and left out for him, and filling our shoeboxes and
brown paper bags with apples, raisins, oranges, and nuts (What would have
been the imprint on white children's minds, I was later to wonder, if once
a year they were encouraged to welcome a stealthily moving large black man
into their sleeping houses in the middle of the night?)
--Alice Walker
Nancy
>The illegal promotion of monotheism is apparently something of which you
>approve. I say it is tyranny of the majority.
Let's just say that a monument on public property doesn't concern me. I don't
see it as a promotion of anything and I don't think it's anything to get my
undies in a bundle about. I'd rather use my time to minister to the poor,
starving and underprivileged.
>If you were of an alternative believe(sic)system, perhaps you might
>understand.
Alternate to what?
>There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that posting the 10K will
>improve the "priorities" of society.
>
And is there proof that posting them will harm someone in society?
>On the other hand, replacing the illegal promotion of monotheism with
>neutrality benefits everyone.
Would you please describe the replacement.......what would replace this
monument?
Nancy
>
>The person made a lame claim about the establishment clause. Your claim
>that the phrase "separation of church and state" (and I am paraphrasing
>here) is not in the Constitution doesn't satisfy the request for a
>cite of where in the Constitition it DOES SAY SOMETHING ........ see
>above.
Do you enjoy being obtuse?
Harry
> news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100121...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Mike wrote:
> >
> > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> >
> > > > On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Mike wrote:
> >
> > > > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > > >
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100121...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> >
> > The adultery of the mayor is not a Constitutional matter.
Unless it materially affects the citizens of Milwaukee. Further, with this
allegation, he is in violation of the City Constitution, which states, "As
chief executive of the City, the Mayor is responsible for assuring that
state laws and City ordinances are observed and enforced."
>
>
> So you don't mind Milwaukee taxpayer's getting screwed because the Mayor
got
> screwed.....
>
>
> >
> > I will leave it for you to worry about.
> >
> > > > If you loose sleep over the escapades of others, it is all yours.
> >
> > > > I am much more concerned about unconstitutional religious monuments
on
> > > > public property than about the adulterous affairs of public figures.
> > >
> > > Yet you lose sleep over some art.....
> >
> > Art belongs in museums. We are not talking about "art" here. We are
> > talking about an unconstitutional display of religion. We are talking
> > about the promotion of monotheism by city government.
>
>
> So why don't you start a campaign to get that ugly orange thing at the end
> of Wisconsin Avenue removed as it belongs in a museum?
maybe because it's really a religious worship symbol for the egyptian god
ra.
>
>
> >
> > The government is to remain neutral in matters of religion. Why is that
> > so hard for you to understand. Or is it that you understand it and
> > disagree with it?
>
<snip>
> >
> > Freedom of religion so long as its YOUR religion?
>
> That's exactly what I am accusing you of.... which is ironic.... as I
> believe the absence of religion is a form of belief.... so you preaching
"No
> Religion" is the same as someone "Preaching Religion"...
Rather than freedom of religion, I think we're looking for more freedom FROM
religion, which seems to be what our founding father's really wanted.
>
>
> > ------------------------
> > In 1555, the sage Nostradamus wrote: 'Come the millennium, month 12, in
> > the home of the greatest power, the village idiot will come forth to be
> > acclaimed the leader.'
> >
>
> Thank God Nader didn't get elected so this didn't become true....
>
> ;-)
:o
Kevin Thomas
: This is the kind of nonsense promoted by David Barton and D. James
: Kennedy. You misrepresent what "atheism" means. It is promotion of no
: dogma. Neutrality in matters of religion does not equal atheism.
Yet you preach it with the same vigor as any televangelist and quoting
obscure authors as if it were scripture.
The only difference between you and a preacher is how late you sleep on
Sunday mornings. Same song, different choir.
Nancy
>I can tell you that as a 5th grader I had to deal with a prayer leading
>teacher in a Wisconsin public school.
I have never heard anything like this. Of course, this is against the law and
something should have been done about it.
> I resent like hell any of MY tax money going to ANY religion
>or for the expression of that religion, period.
Well, I resent like hell that MY tax money goes to pay for murder in the form
of abortion.
Can you tell me what religion your tax money is going to?
Carol Lee Smith
> > Freedom of religion so long as its YOUR religion?
>
> That's exactly what I am accusing you of.... which is ironic.... as I
> believe the absence of religion is a form of belief.... so you preaching
> "No Religion" is the same as someone "Preaching Religion"...
Right, MIke. And I suppose you think bald is a hair color.
"I want nothing to do with any religion concerned with keeping the masses
satisfied to live in hunger, filth, and ignorance."
--Jawaharlal Nehru