Freedom of Religion vs Separation of Church and State
Roedy Green
because it is on federal park land.
One group want it preserved as freedom of religion.
The other want it removed, because the state should not favour one
religion over another.
The cross is meant to commemorate war dead. Buddhists were refused a
permit to place a similar memorial in the park.
I suggest this way of resolving the dispute. Those who want the cross
should buy 1 acre or more of land adjacent to the park and trade it
for an acre of land containing the cross. Then the land becomes
private and they can do with it whatever they want.
If the parks people refuse co-operate, just move the cross to the new
land.
If refuse to do that, it comes clear the issue is not the right to
display the cross, but the right to impose Christianity on others,
demonstrating Christianity's special status above other religions in
the eyes of the law.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
I advocate that super programmers who can juggle vastly more complex balls than average guys can, should be banned, by management, from dragging the average crowd into system complexity zones where the whole team will start to drown.
~ Jan V.
klunk
"Roedy Green" <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:18uqc5lu4ul96mu15...@4ax.com...
> There is a large cross out in the desert. It has become controversial
> because it is on federal park land.
>
> One group want it preserved as freedom of religion.
>
> The other want it removed, because the state should not favour one
> religion over another.
>
> The cross is meant to commemorate war dead. Buddhists were refused a
> permit to place a similar memorial in the park.
>
> I suggest this way of resolving the dispute. Those who want the cross
> should buy 1 acre or more of land adjacent to the park and trade it
> for an acre of land containing the cross. Then the land becomes
> private and they can do with it whatever they want.
>
> If the parks people refuse co-operate, just move the cross to the new
> land.
>
> If refuse to do that, it comes clear the issue is not the right to
> display the cross, but the right to impose Christianity on others,
> demonstrating Christianity's special status above other religions in
> the eyes of the law.
the other option would be to permit buddhists to place their own memorial...
acknowledging the existence of a belief system isn't "imposing" it on
others... belief systems exist... and as long as each gets fair, equal and
impartial treatment, then people can feel more free to practice their
beliefs without adopting feelings of persecution...
imo... not permitting people to pay tribute through deeply held feelings of
honour and respect for that which they cherish in the manner most befitting
their right to practice their beliefs is an even greater insult to them than
it is to some who choose to be affronted by symbols of beliefs they don't
subscribe to...
your idea is just another way of avoiding reality... and is one which
fosters divisiveness, not acceptance... it is an act which is little more
than sweeping an uncomfortable reality under a rug... it is an ugly face of
denialism... which is also no different than the failed manner in which our
society deals with other, also uncomfortable issues such as substance
abuse...
and just so you know... in case you don't already... I don't subscribe to
any religion, but I do believe people should have the right to their own
belief systems... regardless of whether I agree with them or not...
I'm not offended by the image of a christian cross, nor by any other image
reflecting any other belief system... I don't feel as if someone's symbols
are an imposition... but I do feel imposition occurs when someone attempts
to promote their beliefs as the de facto standard for answers to life's
mysteries... iow... my problem is not with religion, but with religious
institutions and the small-minded hypocrites who wield their beliefs like
weapons while practicing the opposite of their teachings...
taking offense to such a symbol is nothing more than overly dramatic
histrionics that are borne from the same mould as fascism and is nothing
more than yet another face of hypocrisy...
Sanders Kaufman
news:P7jzm.78085$4t6....@newsfe06.iad...
> imo... not permitting people to pay tribute through deeply held feelings
> of honour and respect for that which they cherish in the manner most
> befitting their right to practice their beliefs is an even greater insult
> to them than it is to some who choose to be affronted by symbols of
> beliefs they don't subscribe to...
So - you think we should let cannibals and Islamists freely practice their
religion - and have taxpayers fund it?
I'm not convinced that's a good idea - and I think most Americans,
especially Christians, would agree with me on this.
klunk
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:sONzm.212$cL1...@newsfe20.iad...
although cannibalism may be practiced as part of a religion, it isn't a
religion... and if christians have the right to practice their religion,
then they have no right to disallow others from practicing theirs... and
so... the answers to your non-sequitor are "no" and "yes" respectively to
the first part of your question... and the second part regarding funding is
just more vapid reasoning on your behalf because my comments specifically
focused on the fair, equal and impartial treatment of one's belief system...
personally, I don't believe any religion should be supported by taxpayer
money (beyond the cost of creating and enforcing legislation which
guarantees their freedom from persecution) because they already receive
money from their flock... how you arrived at such an out-to-lunch conclusion
speaks volumes on your ability to process what you read...
also, your assumptions that "most americans would agree" is an entirely
delusional form of self-substantiation... any so-called christian who would
deny the right of others to practice their own religion, is quite simply are
not christian in their attitude, but hypocritical... and that apparently
includes you... ;-)
Sanders Kaufman
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>> So - you think we should let cannibals and Islamists freely practice
>> their religion - and have taxpayers fund it?
>> I'm not convinced that's a good idea - and I think most Americans,
>> especially Christians, would agree with me on this.
>
>
> although cannibalism may be practiced as part of a religion, it isn't a
> religion... and if christians have the right to practice their religion,
> then they have no right to disallow others from practicing theirs
Fortunately for all of us, our laws say otherwise.
Freedom of religion is not absolute.
When practicing ones religion infringes too much on the rights of others,
it's a crime.
A good example of this is the band of Christians who recently went to prison
for praying over their daughter, instead of getting her medical attention.
This one comes up quite often.
As a result, we have a body of case law that compels faith-healers to seek
life-saving medical treatment for children, even though their religion
forbids it.
klunk
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:hPQzm.42632$bP1....@newsfe24.iad...
> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
> news:jROzm.13077$QG1....@newsfe23.iad...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>
>>> So - you think we should let cannibals and Islamists freely practice
>>> their religion - and have taxpayers fund it?
>>> I'm not convinced that's a good idea - and I think most Americans,
>>> especially Christians, would agree with me on this.
>>
>>
>> although cannibalism may be practiced as part of a religion, it isn't a
>> religion... and if christians have the right to practice their religion,
>> then they have no right to disallow others from practicing theirs
>
> Fortunately for all of us, our laws say otherwise.
unfortunately for you, your misinterpretation of my statement only reveals
shortcomings in your ability to reason...
> Freedom of religion is not absolute.
who said it was...?...
> When practicing ones religion infringes too much on the rights of others,
> it's a crime.
> A good example of this is the band of Christians who recently went to
> prison for praying over their daughter, instead of getting her medical
> attention.
as sad as it is that some people would choose prayer as a form of healing
physical ailments over the services of a trained medical profession, it is
that person's right... and as even more tragic it is that a parent would
make such a choice for their children, it also is their right...
as much as you or I or anyone else might wish otherwise, it is not a
crime... nor is it an infringement on the rights of others, but a protection
of one's own rights... and is also a poor example of whatever argument it is
you seek to make but fail at doing so...
> This one comes up quite often.
> As a result, we have a body of case law that compels faith-healers to seek
> life-saving medical treatment for children, even though their religion
> forbids it.
lol... your statement reveals not only a poor understanding of law but also
a predilection for invention... ;-)
David Johnston
wrote:
>as sad as it is that some people would choose prayer as a form of healing
>physical ailments over the services of a trained medical profession, it is
>that person's right... and as even more tragic it is that a parent would
>make such a choice for their children, it also is their right...
Is it? Is it a parent's right to beat their children? To death if
they deem it necessary?
Sanders Kaufman
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>> When practicing ones religion infringes too much on the rights of others,
>> it's a crime.
>> A good example of this is the band of Christians who recently went to
>> prison for praying over their daughter, instead of getting her medical
>> attention.
>
> as sad as it is that some people would choose prayer as a form of healing
> physical ailments over the services of a trained medical profession, it is
> that person's right... and as even more tragic it is that a parent would
> make such a choice for their children, it also is their right...
That's what the family thought, too - before the guilty verdict came in.
Now, they're headed off to prison.
klunk
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:3drvc5hfhc0eq4h44...@4ax.com...
is that a corollary argument or are you just completely out to lunch...?...
klunk
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:TBSzm.98246$u76....@newsfe10.iad...
hmmm... which family and what were the circumstances...?...
Sanders Kaufman
> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>> Is it? Is it a parent's right to beat their children? To death if
>> they deem it necessary?
>
> is that a corollary argument or are you just completely out to
> lunch...?...
It's a legitimate question.
Over the past couple of years, several religious zealots in the US have used
their religion as an excuse to burn cheating spouses alive, cut off their
genitals, and even beat their own children to death.
The defense is almost always that they were simply exercising their
religious freedoms.
I know it's hard to believe that this kind of crap really goes on in the
US - but it does.
And it's happens with shocking frequency.
Sanders Kaufman
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>> as sad as it is that some people would choose prayer as a form of
>>> healing physical ailments over the services of a trained medical
>>> profession, it is that person's right... and as even more tragic it is
>>> that a parent would make such a choice for their children, it also is
>>> their right...
>>
>> That's what the family thought, too - before the guilty verdict came in.
>> Now, they're headed off to prison.
>
> hmmm... which family and what were the circumstances...?...
The most recent case (in WI) is discussed here:
"http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8230628".
The girl was diabetic, and the parents decided to pray instead of getting
her medical attention.
Here's another one from PA:
"http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iC9DocVIJjza6ioKSTq7rEWKwS6QD9B75MQ80".
In that case, it was a baby with pneumonia - again, the parents prayed
instead of calling doctors.
Here's another one from OR:
"http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/father_who_failed_to_provide_m.html"
In that case, it was a preemie whose parents were convicted of simple
"mistreatment".
Those are just a few cases from the past 30 days.
If you search WestLaw, you'll find hundreds more.
klunk
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:bGTzm.323671$vp.2...@newsfe12.iad...
> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
> news:R9Tzm.226229$sC1.1...@newsfe17.iad...
>> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>
>>> Is it? Is it a parent's right to beat their children? To death if
>>> they deem it necessary?
>>
>> is that a corollary argument or are you just completely out to
>> lunch...?...
>
> It's a legitimate question.
no... it's not, actually... it's a pretty idiotic question... there is no
correlation between the two scenarios...
there's a difference between protecting one's right to follow a belief
system for oneself in their life and violating the rights of another...
many parents claim to reserve the right to corporal punishment for
disciplining their children... and as much as either you or I may disagree
with that parental right, that's just life... the line between corporal
punishment and physical abuse is usually a matter for a jury to decide...
and is a distinction with which our views are considered nothing more than
opinion...
> Over the past couple of years, several religious zealots in the US have
> used
> their religion as an excuse to burn cheating spouses alive, cut off their
> genitals, and even beat their own children to death.
> The defense is almost always that they were simply exercising their
> religious freedoms.
which isn't a defense at all... and isn't practicing any actual religion...
aside from some fabricated smokescreen of a religion...
> I know it's hard to believe that this kind of crap really goes on in the
> US - but it does.
> And it's happens with shocking frequency.
considering the number of cold-blooded murderers in this world, it's not
hard to believe at all... just because someone claims to be acting out of
some faith, doesn't mean they actually are... prisons are filled with
innocent people.... or at least people who claim to be innocent...
klunk
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:bGTzm.323670$vp.5...@newsfe12.iad...
well... I'm glad to see the laws are changing... I've never agreed with such
a practice, but always believed it is simply a matter of time before extreme
cases push the envelope of tolerance so far that the laws would change in
this area over time...
Sanders Kaufman
> many parents claim to reserve the right to corporal punishment for
> disciplining their children... and as much as either you or I may disagree
> with that parental right, that's just life... the line between corporal
> punishment and physical abuse is usually a matter for a jury to decide...
> and is a distinction with which our views are considered nothing more than
> opinion...
Actually, it's an issue for the legislatures to decide.
--
"When you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Geddy Lee
Sanders Kaufman
news:u0l0d55moit3k6del...@4ax.com...
> We all suffer from the delusion that there is a separation of 'Church
> & State'. There is not, period. Not as long as taxpayers subsidize
> their buildings and operations. And yes, Freedom of Religion is not
> absolute, nor should it be.
Actually, there is such a separation.
It's not absolute - but it's there.
It's not a straight line, but rather a jagged one.
For example - recently Evangelicals successfully compelled the TX
legislature to order that the bible be used in schools.
A Plano teacher pissed them off royally by using it along with Snow White to
compare apple stories, and similar such lessons.
There's not a damned thing they can do about it - because the law doesn't
compel us to teach it as truth.
Now, they're talking about reversing their own law, and to compel us to NOT
use their stories in our classrooms.
David Johnston
wrote:
If it is a parent's right to deprive their children of lifesaving
medical assistance, I was wondering where parental rights stop.
klunk
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:yKYzm.226243$sC1.1...@newsfe17.iad...
> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
> news:yHUzm.255198$0e4....@newsfe19.iad...
>
>> many parents claim to reserve the right to corporal punishment for
>> disciplining their children... and as much as either you or I may
>> disagree with that parental right, that's just life... the line between
>> corporal punishment and physical abuse is usually a matter for a jury to
>> decide... and is a distinction with which our views are considered
>> nothing more than opinion...
>
> Actually, it's an issue for the legislatures to decide.
no... actually... legislatures create laws... juries determine whether they
are appropriate or not... and if not, then they are sent back to legislature
for re-drafting....
klunk
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:ikf1d51ma09r0gn3i...@4ax.com...
who said it was a parent's right to deprive their children of lifesaving
medical assistance...?...
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>
>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>news:ikf1d51ma09r0gn3i...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 20:26:51 -0700, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3drvc5hfhc0eq4h44...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:54:14 -0700, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>as sad as it is that some people would choose prayer as a form of
>>>>>healing
>>>>>physical ailments over the services of a trained medical profession, it
>>>>>is
>>>>>that person's right... and as even more tragic it is that a parent would
>>>>>make such a choice for their children, it also is their right...
>>>>
>>>> Is it? Is it a parent's right to beat their children? To death if
>>>> they deem it necessary?
>>>
>>>
>>>is that a corollary argument or are you just completely out to
>>>lunch...?...
>>
>> If it is a parent's right to deprive their children of lifesaving
>> medical assistance, I was wondering where parental rights stop.
>
>who said it was a parent's right to deprive their children of lifesaving
>medical assistance...?...
Ahem:
RichTravsky
> "Roedy Green" <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > because it is on federal park land.
> >
> > One group want it preserved as freedom of religion.
> >
> > The other want it removed, because the state should not favour one
> > religion over another.
> >
> > The cross is meant to commemorate war dead. Buddhists were refused a
> > permit to place a similar memorial in the park.
> >
> > I suggest this way of resolving the dispute. Those who want the cross
> > should buy 1 acre or more of land adjacent to the park and trade it
> > for an acre of land containing the cross. Then the land becomes
> > private and they can do with it whatever they want.
> >
> > If the parks people refuse co-operate, just move the cross to the new
> > land.
> >
> > If refuse to do that, it comes clear the issue is not the right to
> > display the cross, but the right to impose Christianity on others,
> > demonstrating Christianity's special status above other religions in
> > the eyes of the law.
>
> the other option would be to permit buddhists to place their own memorial...
Fumblementalists would go ballistic.
> acknowledging the existence of a belief system isn't "imposing" it on
> others... belief systems exist... and as long as each gets fair, equal and
> impartial treatment, then people can feel more free to practice their
> beliefs without adopting feelings of persecution...
The point - the Constitutional point - is that government does not favor one
over another.
> imo... not permitting people to pay tribute through deeply held feelings of
> honour and respect for that which they cherish in the manner most befitting
> their right to practice their beliefs is an even greater insult to them than
> it is to some who choose to be affronted by symbols of beliefs they don't
> subscribe to...
They're free to do it on non federal land.
> your idea is just another way of avoiding reality... and is one which
He's quite in touch with reality. You aren't. This is federal land. Case
closed.
Sanders Kaufman
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>> Actually, it's an issue for the legislatures to decide.
>
> no... actually... legislatures create laws... juries determine whether
> they are appropriate or not... and if not, then they are sent back to
> legislature for re-drafting....
I certainly understand your lack of regard for our legislature - since they
never do what you anti-government types want them to do.
klunk
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:8TeAm.140005$Y83....@newsfe21.iad...
I think you don't really understand how the legislative process works... and
as a compensation for your lack of understanding, you resort to
characterizing stereotypes as a means of mitigating your insecurity... how
unfortunate for you that you only succeed in further demarcating your own
lack of regard for a process you seem to feel should follow your limited
preconception... in fact, I am showing far more regard for the legislative
process than you because I've explained the difference between the
responsibilities in the roles of the administrative body and the people...
iow... my attitude is far more pro-government than yours is because your
attitude fixes blame for that which you don't agree with on a body you can
heap disdain on rather than to accept responsibility for that which belongs
to the people...
klunk
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:77d2d5t1qluhhl865...@4ax.com...
hmmmm..... interesting how you interpret that statement as "depriving a
child of lifesaving medical assistance"... try reading it again and see if
you can spot the differences between that statement and your overly dramatic
characterization...
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4AD16AC5...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> klunk wrote:
>> "Roedy Green" <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> > There is a large cross out in the desert. It has become controversial
>> > because it is on federal park land.
>> >
>> > One group want it preserved as freedom of religion.
>> >
>> > The other want it removed, because the state should not favour one
>> > religion over another.
>> >
>> > The cross is meant to commemorate war dead. Buddhists were refused a
>> > permit to place a similar memorial in the park.
>> >
>> > I suggest this way of resolving the dispute. Those who want the cross
>> > should buy 1 acre or more of land adjacent to the park and trade it
>> > for an acre of land containing the cross. Then the land becomes
>> > private and they can do with it whatever they want.
>> >
>> > If the parks people refuse co-operate, just move the cross to the new
>> > land.
>> >
>> > If refuse to do that, it comes clear the issue is not the right to
>> > display the cross, but the right to impose Christianity on others,
>> > demonstrating Christianity's special status above other religions in
>> > the eyes of the law.
>>
>> the other option would be to permit buddhists to place their own
>> memorial...
>
> Fumblementalists would go ballistic.
oh well... fundamentalists will go ballistic over anything... that's just
the way they typically respond when they don't get the preferred treatment
they expect... afaiac... they can go fuck themselves... either all religions
(and by that, I don't mean any idiot who registers their cult as a religion,
but of the major religions which dominate our world.... further to that, I
believe all religions should be reduced in status to being the equivalent of
a social club... but, that's another issue altogether)....
>> acknowledging the existence of a belief system isn't "imposing" it on
>> others... belief systems exist... and as long as each gets fair, equal
>> and
>> impartial treatment, then people can feel more free to practice their
>> beliefs without adopting feelings of persecution...
>
> The point - the Constitutional point - is that government does not favor
> one
> over another.
yes... that is my poing...
>> imo... not permitting people to pay tribute through deeply held feelings
>> of
>> honour and respect for that which they cherish in the manner most
>> befitting
>> their right to practice their beliefs is an even greater insult to them
>> than
>> it is to some who choose to be affronted by symbols of beliefs they don't
>> subscribe to...
>
> They're free to do it on non federal land.
sure... but that doesn't address the issue of a memorial for those who died
on federal land...
>> your idea is just another way of avoiding reality... and is one which
>
> He's quite in touch with reality. You aren't. This is federal land. Case
> closed.
federal land, by definition is land which belongs to all people... and as
such, all people have equal entitlement to it... his option is no different
than taking away an ice-cream from one child who bought it their own with
money they earned because no other child was able to afford to buy ice-cream
for themselves...
iow... it is punishing those who have reason because those who do not have
chosen to take offence over that reason.... it is also no different than
taking away a wheelchair from someone who needs it because others are
complaining that they have to walk...
it is short-sighted reasoning...
David Johnston
wrote:
Oh? Are you saying that physical ailments can't be life-endangering?
klunk
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:s505d5tmqgik9ahqa...@4ax.com...
oh... are you saying that sniffles from a cold is life-endangering...?...
Sanders Kaufman
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>> no... actually... legislatures create laws... juries determine whether
>>> they are appropriate or not... and if not, then they are sent back to
>>> legislature for re-drafting....
>>
>> I certainly understand your lack of regard for our legislature - since
>> they never do what you anti-government types want them to do.
>
> I think you don't really understand how the legislative process works...
> and
Well, I know that when juries rule against the law, the judge usually
invokes nullification or a mistrial.
So, while you may THINK that juries are free to disregard the law, in truth
they are not.
klunk
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:5RxAm.29578$kC....@newsfe11.iad...
nope... juries are not free to disregard the law but they have a duty to
provide a decision which conforms to the legal process... iow... when juries
"rule against the law" for reasons which the judge cannot invoke such
clauses, the law is subject to change... and as such, is sent to the
legislative body for redrafting...
RichTravsky
> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually, it does. Plenty of ways to do a non-denominational or secular memorial.
> >> your idea is just another way of avoiding reality... and is one which
> >
> > He's quite in touch with reality. You aren't. This is federal land. Case
> > closed.
>
> federal land, by definition is land which belongs to all people... and as
And is subject to the Constitution.
> such, all people have equal entitlement to it... his option is no different
> than taking away an ice-cream from one child who bought it their own with
> money they earned because no other child was able to afford to buy ice-cream
> for themselves...
>
> iow... it is punishing those who have reason because those who do not have
> chosen to take offence over that reason.... it is also no different than
> taking away a wheelchair from someone who needs it because others are
> complaining that they have to walk...
Non sequitur.
> it is short-sighted reasoning...
It is Constitutional reasoning. But then they don't ahve that in Canada
RT
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4AD5415C...@hotmMOVEail.com...
ya... just like giving a paraplegic crutches instead of a wheelchair...
>> >> your idea is just another way of avoiding reality... and is one which
>> >
>> > He's quite in touch with reality. You aren't. This is federal land.
>> > Case
>> > closed.
>>
>> federal land, by definition is land which belongs to all people... and as
>
> And is subject to the Constitution.
...which means what...?...
>> such, all people have equal entitlement to it... his option is no
>> different
>> than taking away an ice-cream from one child who bought it their own with
>> money they earned because no other child was able to afford to buy
>> ice-cream
>> for themselves...
>>
>> iow... it is punishing those who have reason because those who do not
>> have
>> chosen to take offence over that reason.... it is also no different than
>> taking away a wheelchair from someone who needs it because others are
>> complaining that they have to walk...
>
> Non sequitur.
oh...?... how so...?... are you unfamiliar with the concept of an
analogy...?...
>> it is short-sighted reasoning...
>
> It is Constitutional reasoning.
you do know the constitution, in and of itself, is incapable of reason,
don't you...?...
> But then they don't ahve that in Canada
actually, canada does have a constitution... but, I'm not surprised that an
american would hold such a belief because your educational system sucks so
badly... ;-)
> RT
David Johnston
>David Johnston wrote
>>
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:55:39 -0700, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> >> medical assistance, I was wondering where parental rights stop.
>> >
>> >who said it was a parent's right to deprive their children of lifesaving
>> >medical assistance...?...
>>
>> Ahem:
>>
>>
>
>I guess that you haven't been in a situation of need, when the paramedic speaks
>French?
Your response is nonsensical.
David Johnston
wrote:
No such limitation on the parental right to deny their children
medical assistance was made.
klunk
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:5sjad5527uguj87mi...@4ax.com...
hmmmm.... interesting how you've chosen to move goalposts in order support
irrational conclusions... ;-)
for the record though, that very limitation is exactly what's been explored
as this thread has been misdirected from its original position into this
caricature of extreme red herrings....
my position has been clear and consistent right from the start... the
freedom to adopt a system of belief must be fair, equal and impartial for
all.... the moment one's beliefs violate another's rights is the moment
where that system of belief invites limitation...
taking this thread into the direction of the limits of parental rights is to
enter another topic altogether... and when people take such tangents in an
effort to prolong what inevitably becomes a meaningless thread, they only
succeed in revealing shortcomings in their ability to reason... ;-)
David Johnston
wrote:
Have I really? You characterized the choice of prayer over medicine
as "tragic". Is a case of the sniffles really tragic?
klunk
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:pdpad5ddj55ggt90v...@4ax.com...
imo, such a decision is tragic because it deludes children into adopting the
attitude that such a standard of behaviour is both "normal" and
"rational".... and it feeds the continuance of what I view as an irrational
system of belief... and as a consequence, continues to permit the prevalence
of systems of belief which have not only been predominately responsible for
permitting much misery in this world but that are also long overdue for
being relegated to the same dustbin of history as many other systems of
belief we have abandoned...
and so, within such a context... the term "tragic" does fit within your
meandering set of goalposts... although, I must say that I do find it
interesting that you've questioned the expansiveness of the term I've chosen
after seeking to expand the parameters of a discussion on a memorial on
public land....
what exactly IS the point you seek to establish...?...
David Johnston
wrote:
The subject line reads "Freedom of Religion vs Separation of Church
and State". I'd say this discussion is safely within those
parameters.
>
>what exactly IS the point you seek to establish...?...
I did not bring up the subject of the right of parents to refuse
medical treatment for their children on medical grounds in the first
place. You did. I was just asking what you mean by it. You have
clarified it. It is tragic as far as you are concerned when a parent
doesn't take their child to a physician for a case of the sniffles. Or
possibly when a parent engages in prayer for any reason.
klunk
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:t51cd5tehmbgem0e8...@4ax.com...
actually... I didn't... sanders raised that issue... I simply responded to
it...
RichTravsky
Non sequitur.
> >> >> your idea is just another way of avoiding reality... and is one which
> >> >
> >> > He's quite in touch with reality. You aren't. This is federal land.
> >> > Case
> >> > closed.
> >>
> >> federal land, by definition is land which belongs to all people... and as
> >
> > And is subject to the Constitution.
>
> ...which means what...?...
Duh, expressions of religion? Not allowed?
> >> such, all people have equal entitlement to it... his option is no
> >> different
> >> than taking away an ice-cream from one child who bought it their own with
> >> money they earned because no other child was able to afford to buy
> >> ice-cream
> >> for themselves...
> >>
> >> iow... it is punishing those who have reason because those who do not
> >> have
> >> chosen to take offence over that reason.... it is also no different than
> >> taking away a wheelchair from someone who needs it because others are
> >> complaining that they have to walk...
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> oh...?... how so...?... are you unfamiliar with the concept of an
> analogy...?...
Good ones, yes...
> >> it is short-sighted reasoning...
> >
> > It is Constitutional reasoning.
>
> you do know the constitution, in and of itself, is incapable of reason,
> don't you...?...
Dodge noted.
> > But then they don't ahve that in Canada
>
> actually, canada does have a constitution... but, I'm not surprised that an
> american would hold such a belief because your educational system sucks so
> badly... ;-)
Canada does not the *American* Constitution. You'd understand that if only
your education system didn't suck so badly.
RT
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4ADA9E55...@hotmMOVEail.com...
oh...?.... how...?....
>> >> >> your idea is just another way of avoiding reality... and is one
>> >> >> which
>> >> >
>> >> > He's quite in touch with reality. You aren't. This is federal land.
>> >> > Case
>> >> > closed.
>> >>
>> >> federal land, by definition is land which belongs to all people... and
>> >> as
>> >
>> > And is subject to the Constitution.
>>
>> ...which means what...?...
>
> Duh, expressions of religion? Not allowed?
the constitution protects against the persecution of religion... so...
bzzzt.... wrong...
>> >> such, all people have equal entitlement to it... his option is no
>> >> different
>> >> than taking away an ice-cream from one child who bought it their own
>> >> with
>> >> money they earned because no other child was able to afford to buy
>> >> ice-cream
>> >> for themselves...
>> >>
>> >> iow... it is punishing those who have reason because those who do not
>> >> have
>> >> chosen to take offence over that reason.... it is also no different
>> >> than
>> >> taking away a wheelchair from someone who needs it because others are
>> >> complaining that they have to walk...
>> >
>> > Non sequitur.
>>
>> oh...?... how so...?... are you unfamiliar with the concept of an
>> analogy...?...
>
> Good ones, yes...
and so... you have no explanation for how that was a non sequitur.... nor, I
doubt, do you have one to support your assessment of what constitutes the
difference between a good and a bad analogy...
>> >> it is short-sighted reasoning...
>> >
>> > It is Constitutional reasoning.
>>
>> you do know the constitution, in and of itself, is incapable of reason,
>> don't you...?...
>
> Dodge noted.
lol... yes... on your behalf.... for how you failed to comprehend how
illiterate your statement was...
>> > But then they don't ahve that in Canada
>>
>> actually, canada does have a constitution... but, I'm not surprised that
>> an
>> american would hold such a belief because your educational system sucks
>> so
>> badly... ;-)
>
> Canada does not the *American* Constitution. You'd understand that if only
> your education system didn't suck so badly.
>
> RT
lol... dodge noted... ;-)
RichTravsky
Your analogy does not follow.
> >> >> >> your idea is just another way of avoiding reality... and is one
> >> >> >> which
> >> >> >
> >> >> > He's quite in touch with reality. You aren't. This is federal land.
> >> >> > Case
> >> >> > closed.
> >> >>
> >> >> federal land, by definition is land which belongs to all people... and
> >> >> as
> >> >
> >> > And is subject to the Constitution.
> >>
> >> ...which means what...?...
> >
> > Duh, expressions of religion? Not allowed?
>
> the constitution protects against the persecution of religion... so...
> bzzzt.... wrong...
You're not American so you would not understand that it is not persecution that's
involved, but *endorsement*.
> >> >> such, all people have equal entitlement to it... his option is no
> >> >> different
> >> >> than taking away an ice-cream from one child who bought it their own
> >> >> with
> >> >> money they earned because no other child was able to afford to buy
> >> >> ice-cream
> >> >> for themselves...
> >> >>
> >> >> iow... it is punishing those who have reason because those who do not
> >> >> have
> >> >> chosen to take offence over that reason.... it is also no different
> >> >> than
> >> >> taking away a wheelchair from someone who needs it because others are
> >> >> complaining that they have to walk...
> >> >
> >> > Non sequitur.
> >>
> >> oh...?... how so...?... are you unfamiliar with the concept of an
> >> analogy...?...
> >
> > Good ones, yes...
>
> and so... you have no explanation for how that was a non sequitur.... nor, I
> doubt, do you have one to support your assessment of what constitutes the
> difference between a good and a bad analogy...
Because you propose something that has no meaning to the matter at hand.
> >> >> it is short-sighted reasoning...
> >> >
> >> > It is Constitutional reasoning.
> >>
> >> you do know the constitution, in and of itself, is incapable of reason,
> >> don't you...?...
> >
> > Dodge noted.
>
> lol... yes... on your behalf.... for how you failed to comprehend how
> illiterate your statement was...
You'er the one who thinks the pertinent amendment in the American Constitution
refers to persecution...
> >> > But then they don't ahve that in Canada
> >>
> >> actually, canada does have a constitution... but, I'm not surprised that
> >> an
> >> american would hold such a belief because your educational system sucks
> >> so
> >> badly... ;-)
> >
> > Canada does not the *American* Constitution. You'd understand that if only
> > your education system didn't suck so badly.
>
> lol... dodge noted... ;-)
Thanks for illustrating the point.
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4ADE91A0...@hotmMOVEail.com...
religious people need their religion... paraplegics need wheelchairs... your
lack of an explanation reveals a lack of ability to substantiate your lack
of thinking...
>> >> >> >> your idea is just another way of avoiding reality... and is one
>> >> >> >> which
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > He's quite in touch with reality. You aren't. This is federal
>> >> >> > land.
>> >> >> > Case
>> >> >> > closed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> federal land, by definition is land which belongs to all people...
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> as
>> >> >
>> >> > And is subject to the Constitution.
>> >>
>> >> ...which means what...?...
>> >
>> > Duh, expressions of religion? Not allowed?
>>
>> the constitution protects against the persecution of religion... so...
>> bzzzt.... wrong...
>
> You're not American so you would not understand that it is not persecution
> that's
> involved, but *endorsement*.
nope... "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States".... that's a protection
against discrimination... not an endorsement of anything other than the
right to one's beliefs...
your response is a meaningless dodge... so.. thank you for confirming my
supposition... ;-)
>> >> >> it is short-sighted reasoning...
>> >> >
>> >> > It is Constitutional reasoning.
>> >>
>> >> you do know the constitution, in and of itself, is incapable of
>> >> reason,
>> >> don't you...?...
>> >
>> > Dodge noted.
>>
>> lol... yes... on your behalf.... for how you failed to comprehend how
>> illiterate your statement was...
>
> You'er the one who thinks the pertinent amendment in the American
> Constitution
> refers to persecution...
lol... try reading your constitution and you'll find the reference in the
main body... but.. thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking
about... ;-)
>> >> > But then they don't ahve that in Canada
>> >>
>> >> actually, canada does have a constitution... but, I'm not surprised
>> >> that
>> >> an
>> >> american would hold such a belief because your educational system
>> >> sucks
>> >> so
>> >> badly... ;-)
>> >
>> > Canada does not the *American* Constitution. You'd understand that if
>> > only
>> > your education system didn't suck so badly.
>>
>> lol... dodge noted... ;-)
>
> Thanks for illustrating the point.
lol... yet another dodge... thanks for proving once again you haven't a clue
wtf you're talking about... but because I take pity on you, here's an
excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly states the
right:
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
btw... thanks for illustrating the effects of a poor educational system...
don't know what I'm talking about...?... re-read your sentence: "Canada
does not the *American* Constitution." (sic)...
you still don't know...?... then you've illustrated my point and proved your
projection.... ;-)
RichTravsky
That's for holding office - no relevance here.
Your "analogy" is a meaningless dodge...so.. thank you for confirming my
supposition... ;-)
> >> >> >> it is short-sighted reasoning...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is Constitutional reasoning.
> >> >>
> >> >> you do know the constitution, in and of itself, is incapable of
> >> >> reason,
> >> >> don't you...?...
> >> >
> >> > Dodge noted.
> >>
> >> lol... yes... on your behalf.... for how you failed to comprehend how
> >> illiterate your statement was...
> >
> > You'er the one who thinks the pertinent amendment in the American
> > Constitution
> > refers to persecution...
>
> lol... try reading your constitution and you'll find the reference in the
> main body... but.. thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking
> about... ;-)
Except we're talking about the amendment, and not the main body ;-)
> >> >> > But then they don't ahve that in Canada
> >> >>
> >> >> actually, canada does have a constitution... but, I'm not surprised
> >> >> that
> >> >> an
> >> >> american would hold such a belief because your educational system
> >> >> sucks
> >> >> so
> >> >> badly... ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Canada does not the *American* Constitution. You'd understand that if
> >> > only
> >> > your education system didn't suck so badly.
> >>
> >> lol... dodge noted... ;-)
> >
> > Thanks for illustrating the point.
>
> lol... yet another dodge... thanks for proving once again you haven't a clue
> wtf you're talking about... but because I take pity on you, here's an
> excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly states the
> right:
Another dodge. the Canadian Constitution (note caps) has no relevance here.
>
> btw... thanks for illustrating the effects of a poor educational system...
> don't know what I'm talking about...?... re-read your sentence: "Canada
> does not the *American* Constitution." (sic)...
>
> you still don't know...?... then you've illustrated my point and proved your
> projection.... ;-)
Come back when you learn a country's constitution ends at the border.
;-}
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4AE38DE3...@hotmMOVEail.com...
actually, there is relevance because it establishes equality for all
citizens, no matter their religious beliefs...
dodge noted... ;-)
>> >> >> >> it is short-sighted reasoning...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It is Constitutional reasoning.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> you do know the constitution, in and of itself, is incapable of
>> >> >> reason,
>> >> >> don't you...?...
>> >> >
>> >> > Dodge noted.
>> >>
>> >> lol... yes... on your behalf.... for how you failed to comprehend how
>> >> illiterate your statement was...
>> >
>> > You'er the one who thinks the pertinent amendment in the American
>> > Constitution
>> > refers to persecution...
>>
>> lol... try reading your constitution and you'll find the reference in the
>> main body... but.. thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking
>> about... ;-)
>
> Except we're talking about the amendment, and not the main body ;-)
yet another dodge noted... ;-)
>> >> >> > But then they don't ahve that in Canada
>> >> >>
>> >> >> actually, canada does have a constitution... but, I'm not surprised
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> american would hold such a belief because your educational system
>> >> >> sucks
>> >> >> so
>> >> >> badly... ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Canada does not the *American* Constitution. You'd understand that
>> >> > if
>> >> > only
>> >> > your education system didn't suck so badly.
>> >>
>> >> lol... dodge noted... ;-)
>> >
>> > Thanks for illustrating the point.
>>
>> lol... yet another dodge... thanks for proving once again you haven't a
>> clue
>> wtf you're talking about... but because I take pity on you, here's an
>> excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly states the
>> right:
>
> Another dodge. the Canadian Constitution (note caps) has no relevance
> here.
lol.... yet another dodge.... ;-)
>> btw... thanks for illustrating the effects of a poor educational
>> system...
>> don't know what I'm talking about...?... re-read your sentence: "Canada
>> does not the *American* Constitution." (sic)...
>>
>> you still don't know...?... then you've illustrated my point and proved
>> your
>> projection.... ;-)
>
> Come back when you learn a country's constitution ends at the border.
come back when you're ready to actually contribute something other than
dodges... ;-)
RichTravsky
No relevance because that's for *holding office*. This is the American
Constitution, not the hoser one.
You're the one with the "analogies" ;-}
> >> >> >> >> it is short-sighted reasoning...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > It is Constitutional reasoning.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> you do know the constitution, in and of itself, is incapable of
> >> >> >> reason,
> >> >> >> don't you...?...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dodge noted.
> >> >>
> >> >> lol... yes... on your behalf.... for how you failed to comprehend how
> >> >> illiterate your statement was...
> >> >
> >> > You'er the one who thinks the pertinent amendment in the American
> >> > Constitution
> >> > refers to persecution...
> >>
> >> lol... try reading your constitution and you'll find the reference in the
> >> main body... but.. thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking
> >> about... ;-)
> >
> > Except we're talking about the amendment, and not the main body ;-)
>
> yet another dodge noted... ;-)
Yet another misunderstanding of the American Constitution by a non American.
> >> >> >> > But then they don't ahve that in Canada
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> actually, canada does have a constitution... but, I'm not surprised
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> an
> >> >> >> american would hold such a belief because your educational system
> >> >> >> sucks
> >> >> >> so
> >> >> >> badly... ;-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Canada does not the *American* Constitution. You'd understand that
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > only
> >> >> > your education system didn't suck so badly.
> >> >>
> >> >> lol... dodge noted... ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for illustrating the point.
> >>
> >> lol... yet another dodge... thanks for proving once again you haven't a
> >> clue
> >> wtf you're talking about... but because I take pity on you, here's an
> >> excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly states the
> >> right:
> >
> > Another dodge. the Canadian Constitution (note caps) has no relevance
> > here.
>
> lol.... yet another dodge.... ;-)
Feel free to show its relevance here.
> >> btw... thanks for illustrating the effects of a poor educational
> >> system...
> >> don't know what I'm talking about...?... re-read your sentence: "Canada
> >> does not the *American* Constitution." (sic)...
> >>
> >> you still don't know...?... then you've illustrated my point and proved
> >> your
> >> projection.... ;-)
> >
> > Come back when you learn a country's constitution ends at the border.
>
> come back when you're ready to actually contribute something other than
> dodges... ;-)
Thanks for illustrating my point.
RT
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4AE7C85C...@hotmMOVEail.com...
ahhhh... so the analysis you have to offer on your american constitution is
a canadian colloquialism... how nice to know that hypocrisy comes so easily
to you... ;-)
yet another dodge noted.... ;-)
>> >> >> >> >> it is short-sighted reasoning...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > It is Constitutional reasoning.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> you do know the constitution, in and of itself, is incapable of
>> >> >> >> reason,
>> >> >> >> don't you...?...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dodge noted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> lol... yes... on your behalf.... for how you failed to comprehend
>> >> >> how
>> >> >> illiterate your statement was...
>> >> >
>> >> > You'er the one who thinks the pertinent amendment in the American
>> >> > Constitution
>> >> > refers to persecution...
>> >>
>> >> lol... try reading your constitution and you'll find the reference in
>> >> the
>> >> main body... but.. thanks for proving you don't know what you're
>> >> talking
>> >> about... ;-)
>> >
>> > Except we're talking about the amendment, and not the main body ;-)
>>
>> yet another dodge noted... ;-)
>
> Yet another misunderstanding of the American Constitution by a non
> American.
yet another dodge disguised as a feeble accusation noted... ;-)
you raised the issue of the canadian constitution not having "that"... which
was literally connected to "constitutional reasoning" (which is at best,
grammatical ineptitude and a logical fallacy you still haven't addressed)
and inferentially connected to the protection of religious freedoms... I
simply corrected you... but, thanks for yet another dodge... ;-)
>> >> btw... thanks for illustrating the effects of a poor educational
>> >> system...
>> >> don't know what I'm talking about...?... re-read your sentence:
>> >> "Canada
>> >> does not the *American* Constitution." (sic)...
>> >>
>> >> you still don't know...?... then you've illustrated my point and
>> >> proved
>> >> your
>> >> projection.... ;-)
>> >
>> > Come back when you learn a country's constitution ends at the border.
>>
>> come back when you're ready to actually contribute something other than
>> dodges... ;-)
>
> Thanks for illustrating my point.
>
> RT
oh, I am more than happy to help illustrate the point on your head... so,
you are quite welcome... ;-)
RichTravsky
Nice to know you concede you're wrong about the American Constitution. ;-}
Come back when you can actually construct a relevant analogy. ;-}
> >> >> >> >> >> it is short-sighted reasoning...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > It is Constitutional reasoning.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> you do know the constitution, in and of itself, is incapable of
> >> >> >> >> reason,
> >> >> >> >> don't you...?...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Dodge noted.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> lol... yes... on your behalf.... for how you failed to comprehend
> >> >> >> how
> >> >> >> illiterate your statement was...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You'er the one who thinks the pertinent amendment in the American
> >> >> > Constitution
> >> >> > refers to persecution...
> >> >>
> >> >> lol... try reading your constitution and you'll find the reference in
> >> >> the
> >> >> main body... but.. thanks for proving you don't know what you're
> >> >> talking
> >> >> about... ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Except we're talking about the amendment, and not the main body ;-)
> >>
> >> yet another dodge noted... ;-)
> >
> > Yet another misunderstanding of the American Constitution by a non
> > American.
>
> yet another dodge disguised as a feeble accusation noted... ;-)
You're the one who trying to follow another country's Constitution. ;-}
Another long winded dodge.
Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
Does the Canadian Constitution have separation of church and state????
(still waiting)
> >> >> btw... thanks for illustrating the effects of a poor educational
> >> >> system...
> >> >> don't know what I'm talking about...?... re-read your sentence:
> >> >> "Canada
> >> >> does not the *American* Constitution." (sic)...
> >> >>
> >> >> you still don't know...?... then you've illustrated my point and
> >> >> proved
> >> >> your
> >> >> projection.... ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Come back when you learn a country's constitution ends at the border.
> >>
> >> come back when you're ready to actually contribute something other than
> >> dodges... ;-)
> >
> > Thanks for illustrating my point.
>
> oh, I am more than happy to help illustrate the point on your head... so,
> you are quite welcome... ;-)
Your admission of defeat accepted.
Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
Does the Canadian Constitution have separation of church and state????
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4AECFCBC...@hotmMOVEail.com...
lol... it's not surprising to know you'd say such a thing after dodging
responsibility for substantiating your claim...
I did... come back when you're ready to demonstrate otherwise... ;-)
you're the one who claims to know his country's constitution whilst proving
otherwise... ;-)
try reading the cite I provided instead of proving your ineptitude with yet
another inept dodge... ;-)
>> >> >> btw... thanks for illustrating the effects of a poor educational
>> >> >> system...
>> >> >> don't know what I'm talking about...?... re-read your sentence:
>> >> >> "Canada
>> >> >> does not the *American* Constitution." (sic)...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> you still don't know...?... then you've illustrated my point and
>> >> >> proved
>> >> >> your
>> >> >> projection.... ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Come back when you learn a country's constitution ends at the
>> >> > border.
>> >>
>> >> come back when you're ready to actually contribute something other
>> >> than
>> >> dodges... ;-)
>> >
>> > Thanks for illustrating my point.
>>
>> oh, I am more than happy to help illustrate the point on your head... so,
>> you are quite welcome... ;-)
>
> Your admission of defeat accepted.
>
> Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
>
> Does the Canadian Constitution have separation of church and state????
lol... asking a question twice which has been answered before you asked it
the first time only proves your dodges are a de-facto admission of defeat...
so... thanks for that... and for proving you'd rather prolong proving your
stupidity rather than simply addressing the issues... ;-)
RichTravsky
>
> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:4AECFCBC...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > klunk wrote:
> >> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >> > klunk wrote:
> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > klunk wrote:
> >> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > klunk wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
I fully substantiated it - the subject refers to the American Constitution and
that's the basis for separation of church and state. Hence no religious displays on
(American) federal land. The Canadian Constitution does not apply here, nor does
the American Constitution apply in Canada. Unless you can show how...
What do wheelchairs and walking have to do with the American Constitution's
separation of church and state ->
What do wheelchairs and walking have to do with the American Constitution's
separation of church and state ->
:) :)
STILL waiting.
> >> you raised the issue of the canadian constitution not having "that"...
> >> which
> >> was literally connected to "constitutional reasoning" (which is at best,
> >> grammatical ineptitude and a logical fallacy you still haven't addressed)
> >> and inferentially connected to the protection of religious freedoms... I
> >> simply corrected you... but, thanks for yet another dodge... ;-)
> >
> > Another long winded dodge.
> >
> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
> >
> > Does the Canadian Constitution have separation of church and state????
> >
> > (still waiting)
>
> try reading the cite I provided instead of proving your ineptitude with yet
> another inept dodge... ;-)
Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
STILL WAITING
> >> >> >> btw... thanks for illustrating the effects of a poor educational
> >> >> >> system...
> >> >> >> don't know what I'm talking about...?... re-read your sentence:
> >> >> >> "Canada
> >> >> >> does not the *American* Constitution." (sic)...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> you still don't know...?... then you've illustrated my point and
> >> >> >> proved
> >> >> >> your
> >> >> >> projection.... ;-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Come back when you learn a country's constitution ends at the
> >> >> > border.
> >> >>
> >> >> come back when you're ready to actually contribute something other
> >> >> than
> >> >> dodges... ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for illustrating my point.
> >>
> >> oh, I am more than happy to help illustrate the point on your head... so,
> >> you are quite welcome... ;-)
> >
> > Your admission of defeat accepted.
> >
> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
> >
> > Does the Canadian Constitution have separation of church and state????
>
> lol... asking a question twice which has been answered before you asked it
> the first time only proves your dodges are a de-facto admission of defeat...
> so... thanks for that... and for proving you'd rather prolong proving your
> stupidity rather than simply addressing the issues... ;-)
You have yet to show the relevance of the Canadian Constitution to this discussion
because, as the subject line shows, this is about the *American* Constitution.
Feel free to repost the relevant passage in this thread ->
;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
You'll dodge again.
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4AF10227...@hotmMOVEail.com...
lol... explanation was provided several posts back... since it was too fast
for you, I'd suggest you read it again more slowly...
lol... typical of a kludge to repeat his imbecilic question as if this
somehow reinforces something other than ineptitude.... yet, since you're
clearly in need of yet another response, I'll direct you further back in our
exchange to find the answer you missed the first time around... ;-)
your waiting only reinforces your ineptitude since it was answered long
ago....
>> >> you raised the issue of the canadian constitution not having "that"...
>> >> which
>> >> was literally connected to "constitutional reasoning" (which is at
>> >> best,
>> >> grammatical ineptitude and a logical fallacy you still haven't
>> >> addressed)
>> >> and inferentially connected to the protection of religious freedoms...
>> >> I
>> >> simply corrected you... but, thanks for yet another dodge... ;-)
>> >
>> > Another long winded dodge.
>> >
>> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
>> >
>> > Does the Canadian Constitution have separation of church and state????
>> >
>> > (still waiting)
>>
>> try reading the cite I provided instead of proving your ineptitude with
>> yet
>> another inept dodge... ;-)
>
> Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
>
> STILL WAITING
lol... try looking instead and you might prove you're quite as stupid as
you're currently making yourself appear...
feel free to look for it...
> ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
>
> You'll dodge again.
nope... it can't be a dodge if the answer was already given... but it IS
dodging on your end if you continue to refuse substantiating your
criticism.... which is exactly what you've done with this post by pretending
I haven't already addressed your simple-minded, faux question... and no, I
won't be reposting it again, so feel free to describe my decision as a dodge
because I'm sure you'll find someone who'll accept your accusation on face
value... for a price.... ;-)
klunk
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:IG7Im.7270$3P2...@newsfe09.iad...
obtw... since I missed this...
that's not a substantiation because a. that's your interpretation of your
constitution and not a reference to the specific passage which prohibits the
display of religious iconography on public property... and therefore amounts
to nothing more than a restating of your original and unsubstantiated
assertion..... and b. there is no passage in your constitution which
establishes such a prohibition.... but... do feel free to go ahead and
actually provide a cite.... for a change of pace from your laughably
transparent dodging.... ;-)
RichTravsky
LOL You mean you dodged it. The American Constitution's separation of church and
state is a legal principle, not a matter of taste or choice. Feel free to
show otherwise.
LOL You mean you dodged it. The American Constitution's separation of church and
state is a legal principle, not a matter of taste or choice. Feel free to
show otherwise.
You have show no relevance with the Canadian Constitution. You are just lying here.
Does the Canadian Constitution clause have establishment and free exercise
clauses?
That's a yes or no question, by the way. Just to make it easy you.
> >> >> you raised the issue of the canadian constitution not having "that"...
> >> >> which
> >> >> was literally connected to "constitutional reasoning" (which is at
> >> >> best,
> >> >> grammatical ineptitude and a logical fallacy you still haven't
> >> >> addressed)
> >> >> and inferentially connected to the protection of religious freedoms...
> >> >> I
> >> >> simply corrected you... but, thanks for yet another dodge... ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Another long winded dodge.
> >> >
> >> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
> >> >
> >> > Does the Canadian Constitution have separation of church and state????
> >> >
> >> > (still waiting)
> >>
> >> try reading the cite I provided instead of proving your ineptitude with
> >> yet
> >> another inept dodge... ;-)
> >
> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
> >
> > STILL WAITING
>
> lol... try looking instead and you might prove you're quite as stupid as
> you're currently making yourself appear...
Another dodge on your part.
As expected, you can't show it.
> > ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
> >
> > You'll dodge again.
>
> nope... it can't be a dodge if the answer was already given... but it IS
You just dodged again.
RichTravsky
> >> klunk wrote:
> >>> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >>> > klunk wrote:
> >>> >> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >>> >> > klunk wrote:
> >>> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >>> >> >> > klunk wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >>> >> >> >> > klunk wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Roedy Green" <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid>
> >> I fully substantiated it - the subject refers to the American
> >> Constitution and
> >> that's the basis for separation of church and state. Hence no religious
> >> displays on
> >> (American) federal land. The Canadian Constitution does not apply here,
> >> nor does
> >> the American Constitution apply in Canada. Unless you can show how...
>
> obtw... since I missed this...
That's because you're not very bright.
> that's not a substantiation because a. that's your interpretation of your
> constitution and not a reference to the specific passage which prohibits the
> display of religious iconography on public property... and therefore amounts
> to nothing more than a restating of your original and unsubstantiated
> assertion..... and b. there is no passage in your constitution which
> establishes such a prohibition.... but... do feel free to go ahead and
> actually provide a cite.... for a change of pace from your laughably
> transparent dodging.... ;-)
Interpretation? Mine? No, it's the interpretation of the American courts and
legal system.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
Read slowly. Carefully.
Game, set, match. You lose.
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4AF7B833...@hotmMOVEail.com...
lol... iow, you've just demonstrated desperation by moving the goalposts...
I never said anything which contradicts the separation of church and
state... but I have asked you to provide evidence from your constitution
which specifies the prohibition of religious symbols on public property....
and I'm still waiting... considering how you've indicated my lack of
familiarity with your constitution, and how you've prolonged this thread
with numerous dodges; I'm rather amused you haven't made the relatively
minor effort to simply find the reference and posted it.... could it be
because no such prohibition actually exists...?...
lol... you mean you're not going to make the effort to provide the article
which specifies the prohibition of religious symbols on public property
because it doesn't exist and rather than admit error, you'll continue to
dodge responsibility for substantiating your claim and accuse me of the
behaviour you've been indulging in.... ;-)
lol... you stated that canada has no "constitutional reasoning" (whatever
that gibberish literally means, but I interpreted as protections for
practicing one's religious beliefs) and I provided a direct cite which
proved yours was an inept charge to begin with... and since providing that
evidence, all you've done is ask for an explanation of relevance... clearly,
you've never had an interest in any form of honest dialog because the sole
purpose of your posts is to troll for attention... and so... since you have
mine, is your life now filled with meaning...?... are you a happier person
because you're not completely ignored as an irrational and disingenuous
nutcase...?... if so, then I'm happy to help you deal with your loneliness
and misery... it always makes me feel good to bring some happiness to the
psychologically destitute.... ;-)
lol... another attempt to accuse another of behaviour you've been
demonstrably guilty of....;-)
as expected, you have nothing but trolling to mitigate your insecurity...
;-)
>> > ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
>> >
>> > You'll dodge again.
>>
>> nope... it can't be a dodge if the answer was already given... but it IS
>
> You just dodged again.
lol... trimming out the shit which scares the shit out of you while
pretending your demands haven't been met is a de facto admission of a cry
for attention.... ;-)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4AF7B948...@hotmMOVEail.com...
lol... projection noted... ;-)
>> that's not a substantiation because a. that's your interpretation of
>> your
>> constitution and not a reference to the specific passage which prohibits
>> the
>> display of religious iconography on public property... and therefore
>> amounts
>> to nothing more than a restating of your original and unsubstantiated
>> assertion..... and b. there is no passage in your constitution which
>> establishes such a prohibition.... but... do feel free to go ahead and
>> actually provide a cite.... for a change of pace from your laughably
>> transparent dodging.... ;-)
>
> Interpretation? Mine? No, it's the interpretation of the American courts
> and
> legal system.
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
>
> Read slowly. Carefully.
>
> Game, set, match. You lose.
lol... a list of cites where the courts have ruled against propagandizing
isn't the same as a cite from the constitution which prohibits the presence
of religious symbols on public property... but... nice try though... you've
at least made an effort to prove you're not entirely incompetent.... just
entirely disingenuous... ;-)
RichTravsky
You just demonstrated you don't realize that placing religious symbols on FEDERAL
property is in the same category as those cases.
You should quit before digging yourself in any deeper than you already are.
You're to be forgiven because you're not American.
RT
RichTravsky
The goalposts are exactly where they've always been - the American legal
system.
> I never said anything which contradicts the separation of church and
just like giving a paraplegic crutches instead of a wheelchair...
WHat you said demonstrates you don't understand the issues here.
> state... but I have asked you to provide evidence from your constitution
> which specifies the prohibition of religious symbols on public property....
Did that in the other part of this thread. Do keep up.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
> and I'm still waiting... considering how you've indicated my lack of
> familiarity with your constitution, and how you've prolonged this thread
> with numerous dodges; I'm rather amused you haven't made the relatively
> minor effort to simply find the reference and posted it.... could it be
> because no such prohibition actually exists...?...
See above.
Like the Ten Commandments???? Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
I said no such thing. Now you're lying. I said the Canadian Constitution has
no relevance here.
here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly states
the right:
That's you dragging in your country's Constitution which has no relevance here.
> that gibberish literally means, but I interpreted as protections for
> practicing one's religious beliefs) and I provided a direct cite which
> proved yours was an inept charge to begin with... and since providing that
> evidence, all you've done is ask for an explanation of relevance... clearly,
> you've never had an interest in any form of honest dialog because the sole
> purpose of your posts is to troll for attention... and so... since you have
> mine, is your life now filled with meaning...?... are you a happier person
> because you're not completely ignored as an irrational and disingenuous
> nutcase...?... if so, then I'm happy to help you deal with your loneliness
> and misery... it always makes me feel good to bring some happiness to the
> psychologically destitute.... ;-)
You're sure long winded. Like to hear yourself talk, eh?
STILL WAITING.
Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
Thanks for admitting you can't show it.
> >> > ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
> >> >
> >> > You'll dodge again.
> >>
> >> nope... it can't be a dodge if the answer was already given... but it IS
> >
> > You just dodged again.
>
> lol... trimming out the shit which scares the shit out of you while
> pretending your demands haven't been met is a de facto admission of a cry
> for attention.... ;-)
Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
You brought it up. Have the courage to explain why.
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B008DB9...@hotmMOVEail.com...
you don't realize that your grasping at straws only makes you look
desperate... but... you go ahead and substantiate your confabulation by
showing a direct correlation between even one of those cites and your
contention that the constitution prohibits religious symbols on public
property...
> You should quit before digging yourself in any deeper than you already
> are.
why... because you're having difficulty climbing out or your hole...?...
> You're to be forgiven because you're not American.
since you're apparently a product of the pitiful state of education in the
u.s., it's understandable why you believe obstinacy is a sufficient
substitute for a well-constructed argument.... ;-)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B009064...@hotmMOVEail.com...
interesting... earlier, you claimed it was the constitution....
>> I never said anything which contradicts the separation of church and
>
> just like giving a paraplegic crutches instead of a wheelchair...
>
> WHat you said demonstrates you don't understand the issues here.
and yet, you've failed miserably to prove this claim....
>> state... but I have asked you to provide evidence from your constitution
>> which specifies the prohibition of religious symbols on public
>> property....
>
> Did that in the other part of this thread. Do keep up.
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
>
> Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
> Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
hmmmm... a ruling which prohibits one-sided propagandizing to children of a
single faith in order to reduce conflicts which alienate those of other
faiths... but still nothing which prohibits the use of religious symbols on
public property... nice try but.... epic fail... do try again though... I'm
enjoying your efforts at recovering from your embarrassment...
>> and I'm still waiting... considering how you've indicated my lack of
>> familiarity with your constitution, and how you've prolonged this thread
>> with numerous dodges; I'm rather amused you haven't made the relatively
>> minor effort to simply find the reference and posted it.... could it be
>> because no such prohibition actually exists...?...
>
> See above.
still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of religious
symbols on public property....
the ten commandments are actually religious laws designed to govern
behaviour... but, nice try though... close but no cigar... and certainly not
an example which supports your contention that the constitution prohibits
religious symbols on public property....
you said, "It is Constitutional reasoning. But then they don't ahve that in
Canada" - on 13102009 @ 7:11pm...
hmmmm.... interesting how you now accuse me of lying... it must be because
you're desperate to mitigate the pain of your embarrassment....... ;-)
> here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> states
> the right:
>
> That's you dragging in your country's Constitution which has no relevance
> here.
that was me countering your claim above... but... nice try at invoking
canards and then shitting your pants while back-pedaling.... ;-)
>> that gibberish literally means, but I interpreted as protections for
>> practicing one's religious beliefs) and I provided a direct cite which
>> proved yours was an inept charge to begin with... and since providing
>> that
>> evidence, all you've done is ask for an explanation of relevance...
>> clearly,
>> you've never had an interest in any form of honest dialog because the
>> sole
>> purpose of your posts is to troll for attention... and so... since you
>> have
>> mine, is your life now filled with meaning...?... are you a happier
>> person
>> because you're not completely ignored as an irrational and disingenuous
>> nutcase...?... if so, then I'm happy to help you deal with your
>> loneliness
>> and misery... it always makes me feel good to bring some happiness to the
>> psychologically destitute.... ;-)
>
> You're sure long winded. Like to hear yourself talk, eh?
you do know that written words don't actually generate sounds, don't
you...?.... but, as far as your history of dodges are concerned, that was
your most pitiful to date....
since you raide the issue of the canadian constitution, feel free to answer
your own question.... ;-)
another dodge... as expected.... ;-)
>> >> > ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > You'll dodge again.
>> >>
>> >> nope... it can't be a dodge if the answer was already given... but it
>> >> IS
>> >
>> > You just dodged again.
>>
>> lol... trimming out the shit which scares the shit out of you while
>> pretending your demands haven't been met is a de facto admission of a cry
>> for attention.... ;-)
>
> Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
>
> You brought it up. Have the courage to explain why.
nope... you brought it up and I've reposted your raising of it above, along
with the time and date where you brought it up... but, I'm quite certain
you'll just pretend you haven't... and I certainly won't be surprised if you
call me a liar.... again... without any justification for such an
accusation... again... ;-)
RichTravsky
You don't realize you just demonstrated you didn't bother to look at the link.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
> > You should quit before digging yourself in any deeper than you already
> > are.
>
> why... because you're having difficulty climbing out or your hole...?...
You evidently feel that under the *American* Constitution that it is permissable
to place religious displays in public places. Can you support that?
Like this?
> > You're to be forgiven because you're not American.
>
> since you're apparently a product of the pitiful state of education in the
> u.s., it's understandable why you believe obstinacy is a sufficient
> substitute for a well-constructed argument.... ;-)
And yet, you're apparently the product of no schooling at all. We're talking about
the American Constitution here...not the Canadian one - tho it's doubtful you're even
familiar with your own country's Constitution.
RichTravsky
In America, schools fall under the category of being public property and
and the Ten Commandments are religious symbols.
Show otherwise ->
> >> and I'm still waiting... considering how you've indicated my lack of
> >> familiarity with your constitution, and how you've prolonged this thread
> >> with numerous dodges; I'm rather amused you haven't made the relatively
> >> minor effort to simply find the reference and posted it.... could it be
> >> because no such prohibition actually exists...?...
> >
> > See above.
>
> still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of religious
> symbols on public property....
See above.
Poor try. The Ten Commandments are indeed religious in nature. Wait - you don't
know what the Ten Commandments are either? ;)
*American* Constitutional reasoning. You still don't understand the difference. Sad.
Your parents must be so disappointed in you.
> hmmmm.... interesting how you now accuse me of lying... it must be because
> you're desperate to mitigate the pain of your embarrassment....... ;-)
But you are lying. You claim *I* raised the Canadian Constitution, when it was you.
here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly states the
right
Now - how is the Canadian Constitution relevant to an American legal proceeding?
> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> > states
> > the right:
> >
> > That's you dragging in your country's Constitution which has no relevance
> > here.
>
> that was me countering your claim above... but... nice try at invoking
> canards and then shitting your pants while back-pedaling.... ;-)
All you did was drag in an irrelevancy - the Canadian Constitution does not apply
in America. WHEN will that fact sink in?
> >> that gibberish literally means, but I interpreted as protections for
> >> practicing one's religious beliefs) and I provided a direct cite which
> >> proved yours was an inept charge to begin with... and since providing
> >> that
> >> evidence, all you've done is ask for an explanation of relevance...
> >> clearly,
> >> you've never had an interest in any form of honest dialog because the
> >> sole
> >> purpose of your posts is to troll for attention... and so... since you
> >> have
> >> mine, is your life now filled with meaning...?... are you a happier
> >> person
> >> because you're not completely ignored as an irrational and disingenuous
> >> nutcase...?... if so, then I'm happy to help you deal with your
> >> loneliness
> >> and misery... it always makes me feel good to bring some happiness to the
> >> psychologically destitute.... ;-)
> >
> > You're sure long winded. Like to hear yourself talk, eh?
>
> you do know that written words don't actually generate sounds, don't
> you...?.... but, as far as your history of dodges are concerned, that was
> your most pitiful to date....
Not denying you're long winded ;) heh heh
No, YOU brought up the Canadian Constitution
"here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly states
the right"
Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
No more dodging this time.
Another dodge... as expected.... ;-)
> >> >> > ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You'll dodge again.
> >> >>
> >> >> nope... it can't be a dodge if the answer was already given... but it
> >> >> IS
> >> >
> >> > You just dodged again.
> >>
> >> lol... trimming out the shit which scares the shit out of you while
> >> pretending your demands haven't been met is a de facto admission of a cry
> >> for attention.... ;-)
> >
> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
> >
> > You brought it up. Have the courage to explain why.
>
> nope... you brought it up and I've reposted your raising of it above, along
> with the time and date where you brought it up... but, I'm quite certain
> you'll just pretend you haven't... and I certainly won't be surprised if you
> call me a liar.... again... without any justification for such an
> accusation... again... ;-)
"here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly states
the right"
that's your quote...liar...
Now - have the courage to explain why you brought it up ->
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B0A15B8...@hotmMOVEail.com...
yet another dodge... you still haven't demonstrated where in the
constitution such things are prohibited...
>> >> and I'm still waiting... considering how you've indicated my lack of
>> >> familiarity with your constitution, and how you've prolonged this
>> >> thread
>> >> with numerous dodges; I'm rather amused you haven't made the
>> >> relatively
>> >> minor effort to simply find the reference and posted it.... could it
>> >> be
>> >> because no such prohibition actually exists...?...
>> >
>> > See above.
>>
>> still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of religious
>> symbols on public property....
>
> See above.
I see you're still dodging responsibility for demonstrating where in the
constitution such a prohibition exists....
apparently, you don't... but... your attempt at continuing to dodge
providing evidence to substantiate your claim that the constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property is once again, noted...
lol... apparently, you can't tell the difference between real english and
gibberish you've pulled out of your anus... your parents must have been
siblings... ;-)
>> hmmmm.... interesting how you now accuse me of lying... it must be
>> because
>> you're desperate to mitigate the pain of your embarrassment....... ;-)
>
> But you are lying. You claim *I* raised the Canadian Constitution, when it
> was you.
nope... I provided evidence which just proved that assertion a lie on your
behalf...
> here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> states the
> right
>
> Now - how is the Canadian Constitution relevant to an American legal
> proceeding?
it's not... why would you think it is...?...
>> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
>> > states
>> > the right:
>> >
>> > That's you dragging in your country's Constitution which has no
>> > relevance
>> > here.
>>
>> that was me countering your claim above... but... nice try at invoking
>> canards and then shitting your pants while back-pedaling.... ;-)
>
> All you did was drag in an irrelevancy - the Canadian Constitution does
> not apply
> in America. WHEN will that fact sink in?
it doesn't, it never has and I've never claimed otherwise... why would you
persist in forwarding such a canard in lieu of simply finding the clause in
your constitution which prohibits religious symbols on public
property...?...
>> >> that gibberish literally means, but I interpreted as protections for
>> >> practicing one's religious beliefs) and I provided a direct cite which
>> >> proved yours was an inept charge to begin with... and since providing
>> >> that
>> >> evidence, all you've done is ask for an explanation of relevance...
>> >> clearly,
>> >> you've never had an interest in any form of honest dialog because the
>> >> sole
>> >> purpose of your posts is to troll for attention... and so... since you
>> >> have
>> >> mine, is your life now filled with meaning...?... are you a happier
>> >> person
>> >> because you're not completely ignored as an irrational and
>> >> disingenuous
>> >> nutcase...?... if so, then I'm happy to help you deal with your
>> >> loneliness
>> >> and misery... it always makes me feel good to bring some happiness to
>> >> the
>> >> psychologically destitute.... ;-)
>> >
>> > You're sure long winded. Like to hear yourself talk, eh?
>>
>> you do know that written words don't actually generate sounds, don't
>> you...?.... but, as far as your history of dodges are concerned, that was
>> your most pitiful to date....
>
> Not denying you're long winded ;) heh heh
which is actually a matter of perception... but, since a single paragraph is
long-winded to you... then I'll take that as an admission you're confused by
words... ;-)
nope...
> "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> states
> the right"
which was an address to your assertion that canada doesn't have
"constitutional reasoning"...
> Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
it's not and it never has been... why would you think so...?...
> No more dodging this time.
okay... then provide the cite from your constitution which prohibits
religious symbols on public property...
thanks for admitting you can't provide the cite... ;-)
>> >> >> > ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You'll dodge again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> nope... it can't be a dodge if the answer was already given... but
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> IS
>> >> >
>> >> > You just dodged again.
>> >>
>> >> lol... trimming out the shit which scares the shit out of you while
>> >> pretending your demands haven't been met is a de facto admission of a
>> >> cry
>> >> for attention.... ;-)
>> >
>> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
>> >
>> > You brought it up. Have the courage to explain why.
>>
>> nope... you brought it up and I've reposted your raising of it above,
>> along
>> with the time and date where you brought it up... but, I'm quite certain
>> you'll just pretend you haven't... and I certainly won't be surprised if
>> you
>> call me a liar.... again... without any justification for such an
>> accusation... again... ;-)
>
> "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> states
> the right"
>
> that's your quote...liar...
yes, those ARE my words, in response to your assertion that canada doesn't
have "constitutional reasoning"... do cite where I've denied this or simply
accept the fact that other people will recognize your lack of ethics... even
if you refuse to...
> Now - have the courage to explain why you brought it up ->
I did.. several times now... and here I go again... I provided the cite from
the canadian constitution as a debunking of your assertion that canada
doesn't have such "constitutional reasoning"...
why do you go to such lengths to pretend you haven't received answers to
your questions while completely failing to provide a cite to substantiate
your claim that your constitution prohibits religious symbols on public
property...?...
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B0A112C...@hotmMOVEail.com...
apparently, you don't understand your own cite... where in your constitution
does it actually prohibit religious symbols on public property...?... you
can start by examining the clause where he made his determination... do you
even know which one he was referring to...?... doubtful...
>> > You should quit before digging yourself in any deeper than you already
>> > are.
>>
>> why... because you're having difficulty climbing out or your hole...?...
>
> You evidently feel that under the *American* Constitution that it is
> permissable
> to place religious displays in public places. Can you support that?
you evidently feel that the american constitution prohibits the display of
religious symbols in public places but you have still yet to cite the clause
which supports that contention...
> Like this?
like what...?...
>> > You're to be forgiven because you're not American.
>>
>> since you're apparently a product of the pitiful state of education in
>> the
>> u.s., it's understandable why you believe obstinacy is a sufficient
>> substitute for a well-constructed argument.... ;-)
>
> And yet, you're apparently the product of no schooling at all. We're
> talking about
> the American Constitution here...not the Canadian one - tho it's doubtful
> you're even
> familiar with your own country's Constitution.
and yet... here you go again, invoking the canadian constitution... what is
its relevance to your inability to cite the clause in your american
constitution which prohibits displaying religious symbols on public
property...?....
yet another dodge is expected from you.... which is typical of someone with
a poor education... ;-)
RichTravsky
You mean the *American* Constitution. And they're prohibited in its First Amendment.
Because you're not American (which explains your not being familiar with it):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No, instead of dodging again, show otherwise ->
> >> >> and I'm still waiting... considering how you've indicated my lack of
> >> >> familiarity with your constitution, and how you've prolonged this
> >> >> thread
> >> >> with numerous dodges; I'm rather amused you haven't made the
> >> >> relatively
> >> >> minor effort to simply find the reference and posted it.... could it
> >> >> be
> >> >> because no such prohibition actually exists...?...
> >> >
> >> > See above.
> >>
> >> still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of religious
> >> symbols on public property....
> >
> > See above.
>
> I see you're still dodging responsibility for demonstrating where in the
> constitution such a prohibition exists....
1st Amendment. See above. Now, show otherwise ->
You shall have no other gods before Me.
Can't get much more religious than that.
> providing evidence to substantiate your claim that the constitution
> prohibits religious symbols on public property is once again, noted...
Apparently, you can't show that they're allowed.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
...
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
...
In America - do fill us in about Canada, eh? - public schools are public property.
LOL. You still don't understand we're talking about the *American* Constitution,
not Canada's. ;-)
> >> hmmmm.... interesting how you now accuse me of lying... it must be
> >> because
> >> you're desperate to mitigate the pain of your embarrassment....... ;-)
> >
> > But you are lying. You claim *I* raised the Canadian Constitution, when it
> > was you.
>
> nope... I provided evidence which just proved that assertion a lie on your
> behalf...
"here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
states the right"
> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> > states the
> > right
> >
> > Now - how is the Canadian Constitution relevant to an American legal
> > proceeding?
>
> it's not... why would you think it is...?...
Then why quote examples from it...?...
> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> >> > states
> >> > the right:
> >> >
> >> > That's you dragging in your country's Constitution which has no
> >> > relevance
> >> > here.
> >>
> >> that was me countering your claim above... but... nice try at invoking
> >> canards and then shitting your pants while back-pedaling.... ;-)
> >
> > All you did was drag in an irrelevancy - the Canadian Constitution does
> > not apply
> > in America. WHEN will that fact sink in?
>
> it doesn't, it never has and I've never claimed otherwise... why would you
Then why quote examples from it? ;)
> persist in forwarding such a canard in lieu of simply finding the clause in
> your constitution which prohibits religious symbols on public
> property...?...
You mean like the First Amendment of the *American* Constitution...?...
There you go again... ;-)
Yep... I brought up where you're posting from. You're the one using it for examples.
And then turn around and say it's not relevant!!!! ;) ;)
LOL
> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> > states
> > the right"
>
> which was an address to your assertion that canada doesn't have
> "constitutional reasoning"...
See above.
> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
>
> it's not and it never has been... why would you think so...?...
Then why quote examples from it? ;) ;) ;)
> > No more dodging this time.
>
> okay... then provide the cite from your constitution which prohibits
> religious symbols on public property...
It's up above. Plus it's online. You could have looked it up long ago and spared
yourself much embarassment.
Thanks for admitting you can't show it... ;-)
Thank you, you may sit down now.
> have "constitutional reasoning"... do cite where I've denied this or simply
> accept the fact that other people will recognize your lack of ethics... even
> if you refuse to...
Cry us a river. You need to be reminded of what you wrote.
> > Now - have the courage to explain why you brought it up ->
>
> I did.. several times now... and here I go again... I provided the cite from
> the canadian constitution as a debunking of your assertion that canada
> doesn't have such "constitutional reasoning"...
Such "reasoning" must be non existent since you admit it has no relevance here.
Thanks!
> why do you go to such lengths to pretend you haven't received answers to
> your questions while completely failing to provide a cite to substantiate
> your claim that your constitution prohibits religious symbols on public
> property...?...
First you use the Canadian Constitution for examples, then say it has no relevance
here. Make up your mind...
RichTravsky
Apparently you don't understand the role of the US Supreme Court. It is the *final*
arbiter of (American) Constitutional issues. Now guess what they based their
decision on? Yes, the American Constitution. Why haven't you looked it up by
now? Hmmm?
Let me help you out
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Search the page for the word "religion"... ;)
> >> > You should quit before digging yourself in any deeper than you already
> >> > are.
> >>
> >> why... because you're having difficulty climbing out or your hole...?...
> >
> > You evidently feel that under the *American* Constitution that it is
> > permissable
> > to place religious displays in public places. Can you support that?
>
> you evidently feel that the american constitution prohibits the display of
> religious symbols in public places but you have still yet to cite the clause
> which supports that contention...
It does. Our US Supreme Court has found so based on the American Constitution.
> > Like this?
>
> like what...?...
Like the link I already gave you?
> >> > You're to be forgiven because you're not American.
> >>
> >> since you're apparently a product of the pitiful state of education in
> >> the
> >> u.s., it's understandable why you believe obstinacy is a sufficient
> >> substitute for a well-constructed argument.... ;-)
> >
> > And yet, you're apparently the product of no schooling at all. We're
> > talking about
> > the American Constitution here...not the Canadian one - tho it's doubtful
> > you're even
> > familiar with your own country's Constitution.
>
> and yet... here you go again, invoking the canadian constitution... what is
> its relevance to your inability to cite the clause in your american
> constitution which prohibits displaying religious symbols on public
> property...?....
You're the one relying on it for examples ;)
> yet another dodge is expected from you.... which is typical of someone with
> a poor education... ;-)
A poor education is evinced by one who does not capitalize their country's name.
klunk
> You mean the *American* Constitution. And they're prohibited in its First
> Amendment.
> Because you're not American (which explains your not being familiar with
> it):
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> No, instead of dodging again, show otherwise ->
hmmm... still no cite from the u.s. constitution showing where religious
symbols are prohibited on public property.... yet another dodge of yours
noted...
<snip<
>> >> still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of
>> >> religious
>> >> symbols on public property....
>> >
>> > See above.
>>
>> I see you're still dodging responsibility for demonstrating where in the
>> constitution such a prohibition exists....
>
> 1st Amendment. See above. Now, show otherwise ->
your cite can actually be interpreted as a contradiction to your claim that
the u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
your ineptitude has been noted...
<snip>
>> >> the ten commandments are actually religious laws designed to govern
>> >> behaviour... but, nice try though... close but no cigar... and
>> >> certainly
>> >> not
>> >> an example which supports your contention that the constitution
>> >> prohibits
>> >> religious symbols on public property....
>> >
>> > Poor try. The Ten Commandments are indeed religious in nature. Wait -
>> > you
>> > don't
>> > know what the Ten Commandments are either? ;)
>>
>> apparently, you don't... but... your attempt at continuing to dodge
>
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
>
> Can't get much more religious than that.
true... and you can't get more specific with the establishment of a law
either.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
religious symbols on public property... your ongoing dodges are noted and
archived for posterity...
>> providing evidence to substantiate your claim that the constitution
>> prohibits religious symbols on public property is once again, noted...
>
> Apparently, you can't show that they're allowed.
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
> ...
> Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
> Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
> ...
>
> In America - do fill us in about Canada, eh? - public schools are public
> property.
why...?... the canadian constitution isn't relevant to your claim that the
u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
<snip>
>> >> you said, "It is Constitutional reasoning. But then they don't ahve
>> >> that
>> >> in
>> >> Canada" - on 13102009 @ 7:11pm...
>> >
>> > *American* Constitutional reasoning. You still don't understand the
>> > difference. Sad.
>> > Your parents must be so disappointed in you.
>>
>> lol... apparently, you can't tell the difference between real english and
>> gibberish you've pulled out of your anus... your parents must have been
>> siblings... ;-)
>
> LOL. You still don't understand we're talking about the *American*
> Constitution,
> not Canada's. ;-)
lol... apparently, you believe your own stupidity... ;-)
>> >> hmmmm.... interesting how you now accuse me of lying... it must be
>> >> because
>> >> you're desperate to mitigate the pain of your embarrassment.......
>> >> ;-)
>> >
>> > But you are lying. You claim *I* raised the Canadian Constitution, when
>> > it
>> > was you.
>>
>> nope... I provided evidence which just proved that assertion a lie on
>> your
>> behalf...
>
> "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> states the right"
why do you keep raising the issue of the canadian constitution while
complaining about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
>> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
>> > states the
>> > right
>> >
>> > Now - how is the Canadian Constitution relevant to an American legal
>> > proceeding?
>>
>> it's not... why would you think it is...?...
>
> Then why quote examples from it...?...
why do you ask...?...
>> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
>> >> > explicitly
>> >> > states
>> >> > the right:
>> >> >
>> >> > That's you dragging in your country's Constitution which has no
>> >> > relevance
>> >> > here.
>> >>
>> >> that was me countering your claim above... but... nice try at invoking
>> >> canards and then shitting your pants while back-pedaling.... ;-)
>> >
>> > All you did was drag in an irrelevancy - the Canadian Constitution does
>> > not apply
>> > in America. WHEN will that fact sink in?
>>
>> it doesn't, it never has and I've never claimed otherwise... why would
>> you
>
> Then why quote examples from it? ;)
why do you raise the issue of the canadian constitution if you're going to
say it's irrelevant...?..
>> persist in forwarding such a canard in lieu of simply finding the clause
>> in
>> your constitution which prohibits religious symbols on public
>> property...?...
>
> You mean like the First Amendment of the *American* Constitution...?...
the first amendment which says nothing about prohibiting religious symbols
on public property...?...
>> >> >> that gibberish literally means, but I interpreted as protections
where...?...
lol... you introduced canada into the discussion and then complained about
my address of it and then have prolonged this non-discussion into the farce
it is for no rational reason other than to troll for attention...
apparently, you are a lonely soul who believes being dishonest and
disingenuous is about the best you can do for yourself... which is rather
sad... %-(
>> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
>> > states
>> > the right"
>>
>> which was an address to your assertion that canada doesn't have
>> "constitutional reasoning"...
>
> See above.
what and/or where...?...
>> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
>>
>> it's not and it never has been... why would you think so...?...
>
> Then why quote examples from it? ;) ;) ;)
why did you raise it in the first place...?..
>> > No more dodging this time.
>>
>> okay... then provide the cite from your constitution which prohibits
>> religious symbols on public property...
>
> It's up above. Plus it's online. You could have looked it up long ago and
> spared
> yourself much embarassment.
nope... no cite yet... but... that's no surprise because there is no such
clause in the u.s. constitution which prohibits religious symbols on public
property...
thanks for being consistent in dodging responsibility for substantiating
your claim... ;-)
> "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> states the right"
why are you quoting my statement out of context...?... so that you can
complain about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
what are you thanking me for...?...
>> have "constitutional reasoning"... do cite where I've denied this or
>> simply
>> accept the fact that other people will recognize your lack of ethics...
>> even
>> if you refuse to...
>
> Cry us a river. You need to be reminded of what you wrote.
why do I need to be reminded when you're the one who can't remember your own
invocations...?...
>> > Now - have the courage to explain why you brought it up ->
>>
>> I did.. several times now... and here I go again... I provided the cite
>> from
>> the canadian constitution as a debunking of your assertion that canada
>> doesn't have such "constitutional reasoning"...
>
> Such "reasoning" must be non existent since you admit it has no relevance
> here.
>
> Thanks!
for what...?...
>> why do you go to such lengths to pretend you haven't received answers to
>> your questions while completely failing to provide a cite to substantiate
>> your claim that your constitution prohibits religious symbols on public
>> property...?...
>
> First you use the Canadian Constitution for examples, then say it has no
> relevance
> here. Make up your mind...
lol... you keep raising the issue of the canadian constitution and then
complain it has no relevance... apparently, you have no mind to make up...
;-)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B121CDE...@hotmMOVEail.com...
yet another dodge noted... thank you for your consistency... ;-)
>> >> > You should quit before digging yourself in any deeper than you
>> >> > already
>> >> > are.
>> >>
>> >> why... because you're having difficulty climbing out or your
>> >> hole...?...
>> >
>> > You evidently feel that under the *American* Constitution that it is
>> > permissable
>> > to place religious displays in public places. Can you support that?
>>
>> you evidently feel that the american constitution prohibits the display
>> of
>> religious symbols in public places but you have still yet to cite the
>> clause
>> which supports that contention...
>
> It does. Our US Supreme Court has found so based on the American
> Constitution.
yet another dodge noted... ;-)
>> > Like this?
>>
>> like what...?...
>
> Like the link I already gave you?
and yet another dodge noted... ;-)
>> >> > You're to be forgiven because you're not American.
>> >>
>> >> since you're apparently a product of the pitiful state of education in
>> >> the
>> >> u.s., it's understandable why you believe obstinacy is a sufficient
>> >> substitute for a well-constructed argument.... ;-)
>> >
>> > And yet, you're apparently the product of no schooling at all. We're
>> > talking about
>> > the American Constitution here...not the Canadian one - tho it's
>> > doubtful
>> > you're even
>> > familiar with your own country's Constitution.
>>
>> and yet... here you go again, invoking the canadian constitution... what
>> is
>> its relevance to your inability to cite the clause in your american
>> constitution which prohibits displaying religious symbols on public
>> property...?....
>
> You're the one relying on it for examples ;)
hmmmm... yet another dodge noted.... ;-)
>> yet another dodge is expected from you.... which is typical of someone
>> with
>> a poor education... ;-)
>
> A poor education is evinced by one who does not capitalize their country's
> name.
zzzzzzzz.... yet another dodge noted... I'll just take your prolonged
stupidity as a tacit admission that there is no clause within the u.s.
constitution which backs up your assertion that religious symbols are
prohibited on public property... and that you're just too embarrassed to
admit error... ;-)
RichTravsky
Afraid to follow the link? Ashamed to admit you haven't looked?
In America, this is know as the Establishment Clause:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
...
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
...
Is there some reason you won't read this?
And there you go. Again. And as elucidated by Thomas Jefferson:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
...
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man &
his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus
building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus
inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to
execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional
performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the
legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises
only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]
...
> >> >> > You should quit before digging yourself in any deeper than you
> >> >> > already
> >> >> > are.
> >> >>
> >> >> why... because you're having difficulty climbing out or your
> >> >> hole...?...
> >> >
> >> > You evidently feel that under the *American* Constitution that it is
> >> > permissable
> >> > to place religious displays in public places. Can you support that?
> >>
> >> you evidently feel that the american constitution prohibits the display
> >> of
> >> religious symbols in public places but you have still yet to cite the
> >> clause
> >> which supports that contention...
> >
> > It does. Our US Supreme Court has found so based on the American
> > Constitution.
>
> yet another dodge noted... ;-)
See above ;-)
> >> > Like this?
> >>
> >> like what...?...
> >
> > Like the link I already gave you?
>
> and yet another dodge noted... ;-)
Tsk. Did you miss that link? Here it is again
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
First amendment. As has been stated. ;-} It's the basis for the decisions
rendered here
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
Perhaps if you actually looked at the American Constitution...? ;-)
Here's a nice illustration of the Establishment Clause ;-)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
Note the phrase
violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
Game, Set, Match. ;-)
Unless you can quote a clause in the American Constitution that supports your view...
;-)
RichTravsky
> <snip>
> > You mean the *American* Constitution. And they're prohibited in its First
> > Amendment.
> > Because you're not American (which explains your not being familiar with
> > it):
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> > petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> >
> > No, instead of dodging again, show otherwise ->
>
> hmmm... still no cite from the u.s. constitution showing where religious
> symbols are prohibited on public property.... yet another dodge of yours
> noted...
That's a direct site right up above. ;) It's from the First Amendment and is known
as the Establishment Clause. It's the foundation for these rulings. Like this one
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
> <snip<
>
> >> >> still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of
> >> >> religious
> >> >> symbols on public property....
> >> >
> >> > See above.
> >>
> >> I see you're still dodging responsibility for demonstrating where in the
> >> constitution such a prohibition exists....
> >
> > 1st Amendment. See above. Now, show otherwise ->
>
> your cite can actually be interpreted as a contradiction to your claim that
> the u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
Explain how (this oughta be good) ->
> your ineptitude has been noted...
> <snip>
>
> >> >> the ten commandments are actually religious laws designed to govern
> >> >> behaviour... but, nice try though... close but no cigar... and
> >> >> certainly
> >> >> not
> >> >> an example which supports your contention that the constitution
> >> >> prohibits
> >> >> religious symbols on public property....
> >> >
> >> > Poor try. The Ten Commandments are indeed religious in nature. Wait -
> >> > you
> >> > don't
> >> > know what the Ten Commandments are either? ;)
> >>
> >> apparently, you don't... but... your attempt at continuing to dodge
> >
> > You shall have no other gods before Me.
> >
> > Can't get much more religious than that.
>
> true... and you can't get more specific with the establishment of a law
Your admission is accepted.
> either.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
> religious symbols on public property... your ongoing dodges are noted and
> archived for posterity...
First Amendment. Again ;) ;) ;)
> >> providing evidence to substantiate your claim that the constitution
> >> prohibits religious symbols on public property is once again, noted...
> >
> > Apparently, you can't show that they're allowed.
> >
> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
> > ...
> > Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
> > Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
> > ...
> >
> > In America - do fill us in about Canada, eh? - public schools are public
> > property.
>
> why...?... the canadian constitution isn't relevant to your claim that the
> u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
You're the one relying on it for examples - you tell me.
> <snip>
> >> >> you said, "It is Constitutional reasoning. But then they don't ahve
> >> >> that
> >> >> in
> >> >> Canada" - on 13102009 @ 7:11pm...
> >> >
> >> > *American* Constitutional reasoning. You still don't understand the
> >> > difference. Sad.
> >> > Your parents must be so disappointed in you.
> >>
> >> lol... apparently, you can't tell the difference between real english and
> >> gibberish you've pulled out of your anus... your parents must have been
> >> siblings... ;-)
> >
> > LOL. You still don't understand we're talking about the *American*
> > Constitution,
> > not Canada's. ;-)
>
> lol... apparently, you believe your own stupidity... ;-)
LOL - apparently, you have no cognizance of your own stupidity :) :)
> >> >> hmmmm.... interesting how you now accuse me of lying... it must be
> >> >> because
> >> >> you're desperate to mitigate the pain of your embarrassment.......
> >> >> ;-)
> >> >
> >> > But you are lying. You claim *I* raised the Canadian Constitution, when
> >> > it
> >> > was you.
> >>
> >> nope... I provided evidence which just proved that assertion a lie on
> >> your
> >> behalf...
> >
> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> > states the right"
>
> why do you keep raising the issue of the canadian constitution while
> complaining about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
> constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
Why are you relying on it for examples?
> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> >> > states the
> >> > right
> >> >
> >> > Now - how is the Canadian Constitution relevant to an American legal
> >> > proceeding?
> >>
> >> it's not... why would you think it is...?...
> >
> > Then why quote examples from it...?...
>
> why do you ask...?...
You don't have a reason? You just write stuff at random? Explains a lot. ;) ;)
> >> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
> >> >> > explicitly
> >> >> > states
> >> >> > the right:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's you dragging in your country's Constitution which has no
> >> >> > relevance
> >> >> > here.
> >> >>
> >> >> that was me countering your claim above... but... nice try at invoking
> >> >> canards and then shitting your pants while back-pedaling.... ;-)
> >> >
> >> > All you did was drag in an irrelevancy - the Canadian Constitution does
> >> > not apply
> >> > in America. WHEN will that fact sink in?
> >>
> >> it doesn't, it never has and I've never claimed otherwise... why would
> >> you
> >
> > Then why quote examples from it? ;)
>
> why do you raise the issue of the canadian constitution if you're going to
> say it's irrelevant...?..
Why did you quote from it?
> >> persist in forwarding such a canard in lieu of simply finding the clause
> >> in
> >> your constitution which prohibits religious symbols on public
> >> property...?...
> >
> > You mean like the First Amendment of the *American* Constitution...?...
>
> the first amendment which says nothing about prohibiting religious symbols
> on public property...?...
The First Amendment which does and is used in court cases? See the Stone v Graham
example up above. ;)
Another babbling response from you.
LOL - you're Canadian! Duh, you bring a Canadian's perspective! ;) ;) ;)
> >> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> >> > states
> >> > the right"
> >>
> >> which was an address to your assertion that canada doesn't have
> >> "constitutional reasoning"...
> >
> > See above.
>
> what and/or where...?...
"here's an excerpt..." ;)
> >> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
> >>
> >> it's not and it never has been... why would you think so...?...
> >
> > Then why quote examples from it? ;) ;) ;)
>
> why did you raise it in the first place...?..
You're the one who quoted from it ;)
> >> > No more dodging this time.
> >>
> >> okay... then provide the cite from your constitution which prohibits
> >> religious symbols on public property...
> >
> > It's up above. Plus it's online. You could have looked it up long ago and
> > spared
> > yourself much embarassment.
>
> nope... no cite yet... but... that's no surprise because there is no such
> clause in the u.s. constitution which prohibits religious symbols on public
> property...
Yup. First Amendment. Yup. See the Stone v Graham example up above. No, let me paste
it in again:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
Now, substantiate YOUR claim ->
> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> > states the right"
>
> why are you quoting my statement out of context...?... so that you can
> complain about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
> constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
The context is you can't keep it straight that we're talking about the AMERICAN
Constitution... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
Your admission. Thanks!
> >> have "constitutional reasoning"... do cite where I've denied this or
> >> simply
> >> accept the fact that other people will recognize your lack of ethics...
> >> even
> >> if you refuse to...
> >
> > Cry us a river. You need to be reminded of what you wrote.
>
> why do I need to be reminded when you're the one who can't remember your own
> invocations...?...
You mean like quoting the First Amendment over and over to you?
> >> > Now - have the courage to explain why you brought it up ->
> >>
> >> I did.. several times now... and here I go again... I provided the cite
> >> from
> >> the canadian constitution as a debunking of your assertion that canada
> >> doesn't have such "constitutional reasoning"...
> >
> > Such "reasoning" must be non existent since you admit it has no relevance
> > here.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> for what...?...
Your admission the Canadian Constitution has no relevance here.
> >> why do you go to such lengths to pretend you haven't received answers to
> >> your questions while completely failing to provide a cite to substantiate
> >> your claim that your constitution prohibits religious symbols on public
> >> property...?...
> >
> > First you use the Canadian Constitution for examples, then say it has no
> > relevance
> > here. Make up your mind...
>
> lol... you keep raising the issue of the canadian constitution and then
> complain it has no relevance... apparently, you have no mind to make up...
> ;-)
LOL - you quote from the Canadian Constitution and then say that's irrelevant. ;) ;)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B1C901A...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> klunk wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > You mean the *American* Constitution. And they're prohibited in its
>> > First
>> > Amendment.
>> > Because you're not American (which explains your not being familiar
>> > with
>> > it):
>> >
>> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>> > speech,
>> > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
>> > to
>> > petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>> >
>> > No, instead of dodging again, show otherwise ->
>>
>> hmmm... still no cite from the u.s. constitution showing where religious
>> symbols are prohibited on public property.... yet another dodge of yours
>> noted...
>
> That's a direct site right up above. ;) It's from the First Amendment and
> is known
> as the Establishment Clause. It's the foundation for these rulings. Like
> this one
your "site" (sic) isn't a clause from the constitution which prohibits
religious symbols on public property... try again, stupid... ;-)
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
> U.S. Supreme Court
> STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
> STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
>
> Held:
>
> A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten
> Commandments,
> purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
> classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore
> is
> unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
> Amendment.
> While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the
> bottom
> of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
> clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
> Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed"
> secular
> purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
> pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
> themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature,
> and the
> posting serves no constitutional educational function.
> ...
>
>> <snip<
>>
>> >> >> still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of
>> >> >> religious
>> >> >> symbols on public property....
>> >> >
>> >> > See above.
>> >>
>> >> I see you're still dodging responsibility for demonstrating where in
>> >> the
>> >> constitution such a prohibition exists....
>> >
>> > 1st Amendment. See above. Now, show otherwise ->
>>
>> your cite can actually be interpreted as a contradiction to your claim
>> that
>> the u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
>
> Explain how (this oughta be good) ->
I already did... "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...
>> your ineptitude has been noted...
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >> the ten commandments are actually religious laws designed to govern
>> >> >> behaviour... but, nice try though... close but no cigar... and
>> >> >> certainly
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> an example which supports your contention that the constitution
>> >> >> prohibits
>> >> >> religious symbols on public property....
>> >> >
>> >> > Poor try. The Ten Commandments are indeed religious in nature.
>> >> > Wait -
>> >> > you
>> >> > don't
>> >> > know what the Ten Commandments are either? ;)
>> >>
>> >> apparently, you don't... but... your attempt at continuing to dodge
>> >
>> > You shall have no other gods before Me.
>> >
>> > Can't get much more religious than that.
>>
>> true... and you can't get more specific with the establishment of a law
>
> Your admission is accepted.
hmmm... yet another evasion noted.... ;-)
>> either.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
>> religious symbols on public property... your ongoing dodges are noted and
>> archived for posterity...
>
> First Amendment. Again ;) ;) ;)
hmmmm... still another evasion noted.... ;-)
>> >> providing evidence to substantiate your claim that the constitution
>> >> prohibits religious symbols on public property is once again, noted...
>> >
>> > Apparently, you can't show that they're allowed.
>> >
>> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
>> > ...
>> > Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
>> > Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools
>> > unconstitutional.
>> > ...
>> >
>> > In America - do fill us in about Canada, eh? - public schools are
>> > public
>> > property.
>>
>> why...?... the canadian constitution isn't relevant to your claim that
>> the
>> u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
>
> You're the one relying on it for examples - you tell me.
you keep invoking it... why...?...
>> <snip>
>> >> >> you said, "It is Constitutional reasoning. But then they don't ahve
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> Canada" - on 13102009 @ 7:11pm...
>> >> >
>> >> > *American* Constitutional reasoning. You still don't understand the
>> >> > difference. Sad.
>> >> > Your parents must be so disappointed in you.
>> >>
>> >> lol... apparently, you can't tell the difference between real english
>> >> and
>> >> gibberish you've pulled out of your anus... your parents must have
>> >> been
>> >> siblings... ;-)
>> >
>> > LOL. You still don't understand we're talking about the *American*
>> > Constitution,
>> > not Canada's. ;-)
>>
>> lol... apparently, you believe your own stupidity... ;-)
>
> LOL - apparently, you have no cognizance of your own stupidity :) :)
lol... apparently, you believe your stupidity is cleverness... ;-)
>> >> >> hmmmm.... interesting how you now accuse me of lying... it must be
>> >> >> because
>> >> >> you're desperate to mitigate the pain of your embarrassment.......
>> >> >> ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > But you are lying. You claim *I* raised the Canadian Constitution,
>> >> > when
>> >> > it
>> >> > was you.
>> >>
>> >> nope... I provided evidence which just proved that assertion a lie on
>> >> your
>> >> behalf...
>> >
>> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
>> > states the right"
>>
>> why do you keep raising the issue of the canadian constitution while
>> complaining about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
>> constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
>
> Why are you relying on it for examples?
why are you invoking it...?...
>> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
>> >> > explicitly
>> >> > states the
>> >> > right
>> >> >
>> >> > Now - how is the Canadian Constitution relevant to an American legal
>> >> > proceeding?
>> >>
>> >> it's not... why would you think it is...?...
>> >
>> > Then why quote examples from it...?...
>>
>> why do you ask...?...
>
> You don't have a reason? You just write stuff at random? Explains a lot.
> ;) ;)
why do you invoke something and then pretend you didn't... hmmm... that
explains a lot about your disingenuous nature.... and for you need to whore
yourself out at such a base level for attention.... ;-)
>> >> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
>> >> >> > explicitly
>> >> >> > states
>> >> >> > the right:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That's you dragging in your country's Constitution which has no
>> >> >> > relevance
>> >> >> > here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> that was me countering your claim above... but... nice try at
>> >> >> invoking
>> >> >> canards and then shitting your pants while back-pedaling.... ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > All you did was drag in an irrelevancy - the Canadian Constitution
>> >> > does
>> >> > not apply
>> >> > in America. WHEN will that fact sink in?
>> >>
>> >> it doesn't, it never has and I've never claimed otherwise... why would
>> >> you
>> >
>> > Then why quote examples from it? ;)
>>
>> why do you raise the issue of the canadian constitution if you're going
>> to
>> say it's irrelevant...?..
>
> Why did you quote from it?
why did you invoke it...?...
>> >> persist in forwarding such a canard in lieu of simply finding the
>> >> clause
>> >> in
>> >> your constitution which prohibits religious symbols on public
>> >> property...?...
>> >
>> > You mean like the First Amendment of the *American* Constitution...?...
>>
>> the first amendment which says nothing about prohibiting religious
>> symbols
>> on public property...?...
>
> The First Amendment which does and is used in court cases? See the Stone v
> Graham
> example up above. ;)
hmmmm... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits religious
symbols on public property... evasion noted... ;-)
lol... yet another bit of attention whoring from you... ;-)
ahhh... so... you had no reason to invoke it in the first place beyond using
it as fodder for your attention whoring endeavours... ;-)
>> >> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
>> >> > explicitly
>> >> > states
>> >> > the right"
>> >>
>> >> which was an address to your assertion that canada doesn't have
>> >> "constitutional reasoning"...
>> >
>> > See above.
>>
>> what and/or where...?...
>
> "here's an excerpt..." ;)
ahhh... more context free attention whoring.... ;-)
>> >> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
>> >>
>> >> it's not and it never has been... why would you think so...?...
>> >
>> > Then why quote examples from it? ;) ;) ;)
>>
>> why did you raise it in the first place...?..
>
> You're the one who quoted from it ;)
you invoked it... why...?...
hmmmm.... still no quote from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
religious symbols on public property noted....
hmmm... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits religious
symbols on public property noted... ;-)
>> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
>> > states the right"
>>
>> why are you quoting my statement out of context...?... so that you can
>> complain about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
>> constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
>
> The context is you can't keep it straight that we're talking about the
> AMERICAN
> Constitution... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
lol... then why invoke the canadian constitution in the first place...?...
no need... I always admit to my error... it would be nice however, if you
were capable of reciprocating... but... disingenuous attention whores like
you rarely make such admissions... ;-)
>> >> have "constitutional reasoning"... do cite where I've denied this or
>> >> simply
>> >> accept the fact that other people will recognize your lack of
>> >> ethics...
>> >> even
>> >> if you refuse to...
>> >
>> > Cry us a river. You need to be reminded of what you wrote.
>>
>> why do I need to be reminded when you're the one who can't remember your
>> own
>> invocations...?...
>
> You mean like quoting the First Amendment over and over to you?
like you still haven't provided a cite from the constitution which prohibits
religious symbols on public property...
>> >> > Now - have the courage to explain why you brought it up ->
>> >>
>> >> I did.. several times now... and here I go again... I provided the
>> >> cite
>> >> from
>> >> the canadian constitution as a debunking of your assertion that canada
>> >> doesn't have such "constitutional reasoning"...
>> >
>> > Such "reasoning" must be non existent since you admit it has no
>> > relevance
>> > here.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>>
>> for what...?...
>
> Your admission the Canadian Constitution has no relevance here.
then why did you invoke it in the first place...?....
>> >> why do you go to such lengths to pretend you haven't received answers
>> >> to
>> >> your questions while completely failing to provide a cite to
>> >> substantiate
>> >> your claim that your constitution prohibits religious symbols on
>> >> public
>> >> property...?...
>> >
>> > First you use the Canadian Constitution for examples, then say it has
>> > no
>> > relevance
>> > here. Make up your mind...
>>
>> lol... you keep raising the issue of the canadian constitution and then
>> complain it has no relevance... apparently, you have no mind to make
>> up...
>> ;-)
>
> LOL - you quote from the Canadian Constitution and then say that's
> irrelevant. ;) ;)
lol... you invoke the canadian constitution and then whine about its lack of
relevance... ;-)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B1C8AAD...@hotmMOVEail.com...
hmmmm.... is there some reason you believe this serves as a cite which
supports your contention that the u.s. constitution prohibits religious
symbols on public property...?..
> And there you go. Again. And as elucidated by Thomas Jefferson:
>
> http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
> ...
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
> &
> his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
> that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not
> opinions,
> I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
> people
> which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus
> building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus
> inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only
> to
> execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional
> performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is
> the
> legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises
> only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]
> ...
hmmmm.... how does this statement serve to support your contention that the
constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
>> >> >> > You should quit before digging yourself in any deeper than you
>> >> >> > already
>> >> >> > are.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> why... because you're having difficulty climbing out or your
>> >> >> hole...?...
>> >> >
>> >> > You evidently feel that under the *American* Constitution that it is
>> >> > permissable
>> >> > to place religious displays in public places. Can you support that?
>> >>
>> >> you evidently feel that the american constitution prohibits the
>> >> display
>> >> of
>> >> religious symbols in public places but you have still yet to cite the
>> >> clause
>> >> which supports that contention...
>> >
>> > It does. Our US Supreme Court has found so based on the American
>> > Constitution.
>>
>> yet another dodge noted... ;-)
>
> See above ;-)
yes... I did... yet another dodge... ;-)
>> >> > Like this?
>> >>
>> >> like what...?...
>> >
>> > Like the link I already gave you?
>>
>> and yet another dodge noted... ;-)
>
> Tsk. Did you miss that link? Here it is again
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
tsk... did you think your dodge was successful...?...
>> >> >> > You're to be forgiven because you're not American.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> since you're apparently a product of the pitiful state of education
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> u.s., it's understandable why you believe obstinacy is a sufficient
>> >> >> substitute for a well-constructed argument.... ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > And yet, you're apparently the product of no schooling at all. We're
>> >> > talking about
>> >> > the American Constitution here...not the Canadian one - tho it's
>> >> > doubtful
>> >> > you're even
>> >> > familiar with your own country's Constitution.
>> >>
>> >> and yet... here you go again, invoking the canadian constitution...
>> >> what
>> >> is
>> >> its relevance to your inability to cite the clause in your american
>> >> constitution which prohibits displaying religious symbols on public
>> >> property...?....
>> >
>> > You're the one relying on it for examples ;)
>>
>> hmmmm... yet another dodge noted.... ;-)
>
> hmmmm... yet another dodge noted.... ;-)
hmmmm... an appropriated accusation used as a projection noted... ;-)
zzzzzz.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
religious symbols on public property noted... ;-)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B1C901A...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> klunk wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > You mean the *American* Constitution. And they're prohibited in its
>> > First
>> > Amendment.
>> > Because you're not American (which explains your not being familiar
>> > with
>> > it):
>> >
>> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>> > speech,
>> > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
>> > to
>> > petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>> >
>> > No, instead of dodging again, show otherwise ->
>>
>> hmmm... still no cite from the u.s. constitution showing where religious
>> symbols are prohibited on public property.... yet another dodge of yours
>> noted...
>
> That's a direct site right up above. ;) It's from the First Amendment and
> is known
> as the Establishment Clause. It's the foundation for these rulings. Like
> this one
your "site" (sic) isn't a clause from the constitution which prohibits
religious symbols on public property... try again, stupid... ;-)
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
> U.S. Supreme Court
> STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
> STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
>
> Held:
>
> A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten
> Commandments,
> purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
> classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore
> is
> unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
> Amendment.
> While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the
> bottom
> of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
> clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
> Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed"
> secular
> purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
> pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
> themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature,
> and the
> posting serves no constitutional educational function.
> ...
>
>> <snip<
>>
>> >> >> still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of
>> >> >> religious
>> >> >> symbols on public property....
>> >> >
>> >> > See above.
>> >>
>> >> I see you're still dodging responsibility for demonstrating where in
>> >> the
>> >> constitution such a prohibition exists....
>> >
>> > 1st Amendment. See above. Now, show otherwise ->
>>
>> your cite can actually be interpreted as a contradiction to your claim
>> that
>> the u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
>
> Explain how (this oughta be good) ->
I already did... "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...
>> your ineptitude has been noted...
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >> the ten commandments are actually religious laws designed to govern
>> >> >> behaviour... but, nice try though... close but no cigar... and
>> >> >> certainly
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> an example which supports your contention that the constitution
>> >> >> prohibits
>> >> >> religious symbols on public property....
>> >> >
>> >> > Poor try. The Ten Commandments are indeed religious in nature.
>> >> > Wait -
>> >> > you
>> >> > don't
>> >> > know what the Ten Commandments are either? ;)
>> >>
>> >> apparently, you don't... but... your attempt at continuing to dodge
>> >
>> > You shall have no other gods before Me.
>> >
>> > Can't get much more religious than that.
>>
>> true... and you can't get more specific with the establishment of a law
>
> Your admission is accepted.
hmmm... yet another evasion noted.... ;-)
>> either.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
>> religious symbols on public property... your ongoing dodges are noted and
>> archived for posterity...
>
> First Amendment. Again ;) ;) ;)
hmmmm... still another evasion noted.... ;-)
>> >> providing evidence to substantiate your claim that the constitution
>> >> prohibits religious symbols on public property is once again, noted...
>> >
>> > Apparently, you can't show that they're allowed.
>> >
>> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
>> > ...
>> > Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
>> > Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools
>> > unconstitutional.
>> > ...
>> >
>> > In America - do fill us in about Canada, eh? - public schools are
>> > public
>> > property.
>>
>> why...?... the canadian constitution isn't relevant to your claim that
>> the
>> u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
>
> You're the one relying on it for examples - you tell me.
you keep invoking it... why...?...
>> <snip>
>> >> >> you said, "It is Constitutional reasoning. But then they don't ahve
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> Canada" - on 13102009 @ 7:11pm...
>> >> >
>> >> > *American* Constitutional reasoning. You still don't understand the
>> >> > difference. Sad.
>> >> > Your parents must be so disappointed in you.
>> >>
>> >> lol... apparently, you can't tell the difference between real english
>> >> and
>> >> gibberish you've pulled out of your anus... your parents must have
>> >> been
>> >> siblings... ;-)
>> >
>> > LOL. You still don't understand we're talking about the *American*
>> > Constitution,
>> > not Canada's. ;-)
>>
>> lol... apparently, you believe your own stupidity... ;-)
>
> LOL - apparently, you have no cognizance of your own stupidity :) :)
lol... apparently, you believe your stupidity is cleverness... ;-)
>> >> >> hmmmm.... interesting how you now accuse me of lying... it must be
>> >> >> because
>> >> >> you're desperate to mitigate the pain of your embarrassment.......
>> >> >> ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > But you are lying. You claim *I* raised the Canadian Constitution,
>> >> > when
>> >> > it
>> >> > was you.
>> >>
>> >> nope... I provided evidence which just proved that assertion a lie on
>> >> your
>> >> behalf...
>> >
>> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
>> > states the right"
>>
>> why do you keep raising the issue of the canadian constitution while
>> complaining about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
>> constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
>
> Why are you relying on it for examples?
why are you invoking it...?...
>> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
>> >> > explicitly
>> >> > states the
>> >> > right
>> >> >
>> >> > Now - how is the Canadian Constitution relevant to an American legal
>> >> > proceeding?
>> >>
>> >> it's not... why would you think it is...?...
>> >
>> > Then why quote examples from it...?...
>>
>> why do you ask...?...
>
> You don't have a reason? You just write stuff at random? Explains a lot.
> ;) ;)
why do you invoke something and then pretend you didn't... hmmm... that
explains a lot about your disingenuous nature.... and for you need to whore
yourself out at such a base level for attention.... ;-)
>> >> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
>> >> >> > explicitly
>> >> >> > states
>> >> >> > the right:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That's you dragging in your country's Constitution which has no
>> >> >> > relevance
>> >> >> > here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> that was me countering your claim above... but... nice try at
>> >> >> invoking
>> >> >> canards and then shitting your pants while back-pedaling.... ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > All you did was drag in an irrelevancy - the Canadian Constitution
>> >> > does
>> >> > not apply
>> >> > in America. WHEN will that fact sink in?
>> >>
>> >> it doesn't, it never has and I've never claimed otherwise... why would
>> >> you
>> >
>> > Then why quote examples from it? ;)
>>
>> why do you raise the issue of the canadian constitution if you're going
>> to
>> say it's irrelevant...?..
>
> Why did you quote from it?
why did you invoke it...?...
>> >> persist in forwarding such a canard in lieu of simply finding the
>> >> clause
>> >> in
>> >> your constitution which prohibits religious symbols on public
>> >> property...?...
>> >
>> > You mean like the First Amendment of the *American* Constitution...?...
>>
>> the first amendment which says nothing about prohibiting religious
>> symbols
>> on public property...?...
>
> The First Amendment which does and is used in court cases? See the Stone v
> Graham
> example up above. ;)
hmmmm... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits religious
symbols on public property... evasion noted... ;-)
lol... yet another bit of attention whoring from you... ;-)
ahhh... so... you had no reason to invoke it in the first place beyond using
it as fodder for your attention whoring endeavours... ;-)
>> >> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
>> >> > explicitly
>> >> > states
>> >> > the right"
>> >>
>> >> which was an address to your assertion that canada doesn't have
>> >> "constitutional reasoning"...
>> >
>> > See above.
>>
>> what and/or where...?...
>
> "here's an excerpt..." ;)
ahhh... more context free attention whoring.... ;-)
>> >> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
>> >>
>> >> it's not and it never has been... why would you think so...?...
>> >
>> > Then why quote examples from it? ;) ;) ;)
>>
>> why did you raise it in the first place...?..
>
> You're the one who quoted from it ;)
you invoked it... why...?...
hmmmm.... still no quote from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
religious symbols on public property noted....
hmmm... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits religious
symbols on public property noted... ;-)
>> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
>> > states the right"
>>
>> why are you quoting my statement out of context...?... so that you can
>> complain about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
>> constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
>
> The context is you can't keep it straight that we're talking about the
> AMERICAN
> Constitution... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
lol... then why invoke the canadian constitution in the first place...?...
>> >> >> >> >> > ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
no need... I always admit to my error... it would be nice however, if you
were capable of reciprocating... but... disingenuous attention whores like
you rarely make such admissions... ;-)
>> >> have "constitutional reasoning"... do cite where I've denied this or
>> >> simply
>> >> accept the fact that other people will recognize your lack of
>> >> ethics...
>> >> even
>> >> if you refuse to...
>> >
>> > Cry us a river. You need to be reminded of what you wrote.
>>
>> why do I need to be reminded when you're the one who can't remember your
>> own
>> invocations...?...
>
> You mean like quoting the First Amendment over and over to you?
like you still haven't provided a cite from the constitution which prohibits
religious symbols on public property...
>> >> > Now - have the courage to explain why you brought it up ->
>> >>
>> >> I did.. several times now... and here I go again... I provided the
>> >> cite
>> >> from
>> >> the canadian constitution as a debunking of your assertion that canada
>> >> doesn't have such "constitutional reasoning"...
>> >
>> > Such "reasoning" must be non existent since you admit it has no
>> > relevance
>> > here.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>>
>> for what...?...
>
> Your admission the Canadian Constitution has no relevance here.
then why did you invoke it in the first place...?....
>> >> why do you go to such lengths to pretend you haven't received answers
>> >> to
>> >> your questions while completely failing to provide a cite to
>> >> substantiate
>> >> your claim that your constitution prohibits religious symbols on
>> >> public
>> >> property...?...
>> >
>> > First you use the Canadian Constitution for examples, then say it has
>> > no
>> > relevance
>> > here. Make up your mind...
>>
>> lol... you keep raising the issue of the canadian constitution and then
>> complain it has no relevance... apparently, you have no mind to make
>> up...
>> ;-)
>
> LOL - you quote from the Canadian Constitution and then say that's
> irrelevant. ;) ;)
lol... you invoke the canadian constitution and then whine about its lack of
relevance... ;-)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B1C8AAD...@hotmMOVEail.com...
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B1C8AAD...@hotmMOVEail.com...
hmmmm.... is there some reason you believe this serves as a cite which
supports your contention that the u.s. constitution prohibits religious
symbols on public property...?..
> And there you go. Again. And as elucidated by Thomas Jefferson:
>
> http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
> ...
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
> &
> his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
> that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not
> opinions,
> I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
> people
> which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus
> building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus
> inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only
> to
> execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional
> performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is
> the
> legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises
> only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]
> ...
hmmmm.... how does this statement serve to support your contention that the
constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
>> >> >> > You should quit before digging yourself in any deeper than you
>> >> >> > already
>> >> >> > are.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> why... because you're having difficulty climbing out or your
>> >> >> hole...?...
>> >> >
>> >> > You evidently feel that under the *American* Constitution that it is
>> >> > permissable
>> >> > to place religious displays in public places. Can you support that?
>> >>
>> >> you evidently feel that the american constitution prohibits the
>> >> display
>> >> of
>> >> religious symbols in public places but you have still yet to cite the
>> >> clause
>> >> which supports that contention...
>> >
>> > It does. Our US Supreme Court has found so based on the American
>> > Constitution.
>>
>> yet another dodge noted... ;-)
>
> See above ;-)
yes... I did... yet another dodge... ;-)
>> >> > Like this?
>> >>
>> >> like what...?...
>> >
>> > Like the link I already gave you?
>>
>> and yet another dodge noted... ;-)
>
> Tsk. Did you miss that link? Here it is again
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
tsk... did you think your dodge was successful...?...
>> >> >> > You're to be forgiven because you're not American.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> since you're apparently a product of the pitiful state of education
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> u.s., it's understandable why you believe obstinacy is a sufficient
>> >> >> substitute for a well-constructed argument.... ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > And yet, you're apparently the product of no schooling at all. We're
>> >> > talking about
>> >> > the American Constitution here...not the Canadian one - tho it's
>> >> > doubtful
>> >> > you're even
>> >> > familiar with your own country's Constitution.
>> >>
>> >> and yet... here you go again, invoking the canadian constitution...
>> >> what
>> >> is
>> >> its relevance to your inability to cite the clause in your american
>> >> constitution which prohibits displaying religious symbols on public
>> >> property...?....
>> >
>> > You're the one relying on it for examples ;)
>>
>> hmmmm... yet another dodge noted.... ;-)
>
> hmmmm... yet another dodge noted.... ;-)
hmmmm... an appropriated accusation used as a projection noted... ;-)
zzzzzz.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
religious symbols on public property noted... ;-)
RichTravsky
No answer.
RichTravsky
> "RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >> <snip>
> >> > You mean the *American* Constitution. And they're prohibited in its
> >> > First
> >> > Amendment.
> >> > Because you're not American (which explains your not being familiar
> >> > with
> >> > it):
> >> >
> >> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> >> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> >> > speech,
> >> > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
> >> > to
> >> > petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> >> >
> >> > No, instead of dodging again, show otherwise ->
> >>
> >> hmmm... still no cite from the u.s. constitution showing where religious
> >> symbols are prohibited on public property.... yet another dodge of yours
> >> noted...
> >
> > That's a direct site right up above. ;) It's from the First Amendment and
> > is known
> > as the Establishment Clause. It's the foundation for these rulings. Like
> > this one
>
> your "site" (sic) isn't a clause from the constitution which prohibits
> religious symbols on public property... try again, stupid... ;-)
Actually, it is - are you really this stupid?
Here's the site
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Look for Amendment I. (need help?)
> > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
> > U.S. Supreme Court
> > STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
> > STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
> >
> > Held:
> >
> > A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten
> > Commandments,
> > purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
> > classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore
> > is
> > unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
> > Amendment.
> > While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the
> > bottom
> > of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
> > clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
> > Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed"
> > secular
> > purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
> > pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
> > themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature,
> > and the
> > posting serves no constitutional educational function.
> > ...
No answer.
> >> >> >> still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of
> >> >> >> religious
> >> >> >> symbols on public property....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > See above.
> >> >>
> >> >> I see you're still dodging responsibility for demonstrating where in
> >> >> the
> >> >> constitution such a prohibition exists....
> >> >
> >> > 1st Amendment. See above. Now, show otherwise ->
> >>
> >> your cite can actually be interpreted as a contradiction to your claim
> >> that
> >> the u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
> >
> > Explain how (this oughta be good) ->
>
> I already did... "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...
You didn't. Amendment I is the basis for Stone v Graham.
Show otherwise (no dodging this time) ->
> >> your ineptitude has been noted...
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> >> the ten commandments are actually religious laws designed to govern
> >> >> >> behaviour... but, nice try though... close but no cigar... and
> >> >> >> certainly
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> an example which supports your contention that the constitution
> >> >> >> prohibits
> >> >> >> religious symbols on public property....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Poor try. The Ten Commandments are indeed religious in nature.
> >> >> > Wait -
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > don't
> >> >> > know what the Ten Commandments are either? ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> apparently, you don't... but... your attempt at continuing to dodge
> >> >
> >> > You shall have no other gods before Me.
> >> >
> >> > Can't get much more religious than that.
> >>
> >> true... and you can't get more specific with the establishment of a law
> >
> > Your admission is accepted.
>
> hmmm... yet another evasion noted.... ;-)
An evasion is you ignoring a relevant Supreme Court case.
> >> either.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
> >> religious symbols on public property... your ongoing dodges are noted and
> >> archived for posterity...
> >
> > First Amendment. Again ;) ;) ;)
>
> hmmmm... still another evasion noted.... ;-)
Need to see it again?
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...
That's the Establishment Clause.
> >> >> providing evidence to substantiate your claim that the constitution
> >> >> prohibits religious symbols on public property is once again, noted...
> >> >
> >> > Apparently, you can't show that they're allowed.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
> >> > ...
> >> > Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
> >> > Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools
> >> > unconstitutional.
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > In America - do fill us in about Canada, eh? - public schools are
> >> > public
> >> > property.
> >>
> >> why...?... the canadian constitution isn't relevant to your claim that
> >> the
> >> u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
> >
> > You're the one relying on it for examples - you tell me.
>
> you keep invoking it... why...?...
I keep reminding you that you invoked it ;) ;) ;)
> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> you said, "It is Constitutional reasoning. But then they don't ahve
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> Canada" - on 13102009 @ 7:11pm...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *American* Constitutional reasoning. You still don't understand the
> >> >> > difference. Sad.
> >> >> > Your parents must be so disappointed in you.
> >> >>
> >> >> lol... apparently, you can't tell the difference between real english
> >> >> and
> >> >> gibberish you've pulled out of your anus... your parents must have
> >> >> been
> >> >> siblings... ;-)
> >> >
> >> > LOL. You still don't understand we're talking about the *American*
> >> > Constitution,
> >> > not Canada's. ;-)
> >>
> >> lol... apparently, you believe your own stupidity... ;-)
> >
> > LOL - apparently, you have no cognizance of your own stupidity :) :)
>
> lol... apparently, you believe your stupidity is cleverness... ;-)
LOL apparently you're Canadian.
> >> >> >> hmmmm.... interesting how you now accuse me of lying... it must be
> >> >> >> because
> >> >> >> you're desperate to mitigate the pain of your embarrassment.......
> >> >> >> ;-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But you are lying. You claim *I* raised the Canadian Constitution,
> >> >> > when
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > was you.
> >> >>
> >> >> nope... I provided evidence which just proved that assertion a lie on
> >> >> your
> >> >> behalf...
> >> >
> >> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> >> > states the right"
> >>
> >> why do you keep raising the issue of the canadian constitution while
> >> complaining about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
> >> constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
> >
> > Why are you relying on it for examples?
>
> why are you invoking it...?...
Why did you cite it?
> >> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
> >> >> > explicitly
> >> >> > states the
> >> >> > right
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now - how is the Canadian Constitution relevant to an American legal
> >> >> > proceeding?
> >> >>
> >> >> it's not... why would you think it is...?...
> >> >
> >> > Then why quote examples from it...?...
> >>
> >> why do you ask...?...
> >
> > You don't have a reason? You just write stuff at random? Explains a lot.
> > ;) ;)
>
> why do you invoke something and then pretend you didn't... hmmm... that
> explains a lot about your disingenuous nature.... and for you need to whore
> yourself out at such a base level for attention.... ;-)
Why do you quote the Canadian Constitution and then claim it isn't relevant? ;)
> >> >> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
> >> >> >> > explicitly
> >> >> >> > states
> >> >> >> > the right:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That's you dragging in your country's Constitution which has no
> >> >> >> > relevance
> >> >> >> > here.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> that was me countering your claim above... but... nice try at
> >> >> >> invoking
> >> >> >> canards and then shitting your pants while back-pedaling.... ;-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > All you did was drag in an irrelevancy - the Canadian Constitution
> >> >> > does
> >> >> > not apply
> >> >> > in America. WHEN will that fact sink in?
> >> >>
> >> >> it doesn't, it never has and I've never claimed otherwise... why would
> >> >> you
> >> >
> >> > Then why quote examples from it? ;)
> >>
> >> why do you raise the issue of the canadian constitution if you're going
> >> to
> >> say it's irrelevant...?..
> >
> > Why did you quote from it?
>
> why did you invoke it...?...
Why do you quote the Canadian Constitution and then claim it isn't relevant? ;)
> >> >> persist in forwarding such a canard in lieu of simply finding the
> >> >> clause
> >> >> in
> >> >> your constitution which prohibits religious symbols on public
> >> >> property...?...
> >> >
> >> > You mean like the First Amendment of the *American* Constitution...?...
> >>
> >> the first amendment which says nothing about prohibiting religious
> >> symbols
> >> on public property...?...
> >
> > The First Amendment which does and is used in court cases? See the Stone v
> > Graham
> > example up above. ;)
>
> hmmmm... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits religious
> symbols on public property... evasion noted... ;-)
Need to see it again?
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...
;)
LOL another evasion from you... ;)
Aah so you quoted from it for no other reason than to demonstrate your cluelessness?
> >> >> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
> >> >> > explicitly
> >> >> > states
> >> >> > the right"
> >> >>
> >> >> which was an address to your assertion that canada doesn't have
> >> >> "constitutional reasoning"...
> >> >
> >> > See above.
> >>
> >> what and/or where...?...
> >
> > "here's an excerpt..." ;)
>
> ahhh... more context free attention whoring.... ;-)
Klunker denies what he posted ;)
> >> >> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant here ->
> >> >>
> >> >> it's not and it never has been... why would you think so...?...
> >> >
> >> > Then why quote examples from it? ;) ;) ;)
> >>
> >> why did you raise it in the first place...?..
> >
> > You're the one who quoted from it ;)
>
> you invoked it... why...?...
You quoted it - why ;) ;)
hmmm What part of
violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
did you not understand?
hmmm What part of
violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
did you not understand? ;) ;)
> >> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more explicitly
> >> > states the right"
> >>
> >> why are you quoting my statement out of context...?... so that you can
> >> complain about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
> >> constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
> >
> > The context is you can't keep it straight that we're talking about the
> > AMERICAN
> > Constitution... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
>
> lol... then why invoke the canadian constitution in the first place...?...
lol then why did you quote from it ;) ;)
Since as an American under the American Constitution, I have been right on this
from the start - you, on the other hand, blew it at the start and have been
floundering ever since trying to cover up your understandable misunderstanding
of the American legal system.
> >> >> have "constitutional reasoning"... do cite where I've denied this or
> >> >> simply
> >> >> accept the fact that other people will recognize your lack of
> >> >> ethics...
> >> >> even
> >> >> if you refuse to...
> >> >
> >> > Cry us a river. You need to be reminded of what you wrote.
> >>
> >> why do I need to be reminded when you're the one who can't remember your
> >> own
> >> invocations...?...
> >
> > You mean like quoting the First Amendment over and over to you?
>
> like you still haven't provided a cite from the constitution which prohibits
> religious symbols on public property...
You mean like the First Amendment (how many times have I quoted it now?)
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...
> >> >> > Now - have the courage to explain why you brought it up ->
> >> >>
> >> >> I did.. several times now... and here I go again... I provided the
> >> >> cite
> >> >> from
> >> >> the canadian constitution as a debunking of your assertion that canada
> >> >> doesn't have such "constitutional reasoning"...
> >> >
> >> > Such "reasoning" must be non existent since you admit it has no
> >> > relevance
> >> > here.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >>
> >> for what...?...
> >
> > Your admission the Canadian Constitution has no relevance here.
>
> then why did you invoke it in the first place...?....
Then why did you quote from it in the first place? ;) ;)
> >> >> why do you go to such lengths to pretend you haven't received answers
> >> >> to
> >> >> your questions while completely failing to provide a cite to
> >> >> substantiate
> >> >> your claim that your constitution prohibits religious symbols on
> >> >> public
> >> >> property...?...
> >> >
> >> > First you use the Canadian Constitution for examples, then say it has
> >> > no
> >> > relevance
> >> > here. Make up your mind...
> >>
> >> lol... you keep raising the issue of the canadian constitution and then
> >> complain it has no relevance... apparently, you have no mind to make
> >> up...
> >> ;-)
> >
> > LOL - you quote from the Canadian Constitution and then say that's
> > irrelevant. ;) ;)
>
> lol... you invoke the canadian constitution and then whine about its lack of
> relevance... ;-)
LOL - you're the one who invoked it. ;)
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
Note the phrase
violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
Game, Set, Match. ;-)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B1F2D66...@hotmMOVEail.com...
hmmmm.... nothing prohibiting the use of religious symbols on public
property...
your dodge bears no relevance to your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property...
>> >> >> >> still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of
>> >> >> >> religious
>> >> >> >> symbols on public property....
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > See above.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see you're still dodging responsibility for demonstrating where
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> constitution such a prohibition exists....
>> >> >
>> >> > 1st Amendment. See above. Now, show otherwise ->
>> >>
>> >> your cite can actually be interpreted as a contradiction to your claim
>> >> that
>> >> the u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public
>> >> property...
>> >
>> > Explain how (this oughta be good) ->
>>
>> I already did... "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...
>
> You didn't. Amendment I is the basis for Stone v Graham.
>
> Show otherwise (no dodging this time) ->
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
>> >> your ineptitude has been noted...
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> the ten commandments are actually religious laws designed to
>> >> >> >> govern
>> >> >> >> behaviour... but, nice try though... close but no cigar... and
>> >> >> >> certainly
>> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> an example which supports your contention that the constitution
>> >> >> >> prohibits
>> >> >> >> religious symbols on public property....
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Poor try. The Ten Commandments are indeed religious in nature.
>> >> >> > Wait -
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > don't
>> >> >> > know what the Ten Commandments are either? ;)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> apparently, you don't... but... your attempt at continuing to dodge
>> >> >
>> >> > You shall have no other gods before Me.
>> >> >
>> >> > Can't get much more religious than that.
>> >>
>> >> true... and you can't get more specific with the establishment of a
>> >> law
>> >
>> > Your admission is accepted.
>>
>> hmmm... yet another evasion noted.... ;-)
>
> An evasion is you ignoring a relevant Supreme Court case.
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
>> >> either.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
>> >> religious symbols on public property... your ongoing dodges are noted
>> >> and
>> >> archived for posterity...
>> >
>> > First Amendment. Again ;) ;) ;)
>>
>> hmmmm... still another evasion noted.... ;-)
>
> Need to see it again?
>
> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
> ...
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> ...
>
> That's the Establishment Clause.
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
>> >> >> providing evidence to substantiate your claim that the constitution
>> >> >> prohibits religious symbols on public property is once again,
>> >> >> noted...
>> >> >
>> >> > Apparently, you can't show that they're allowed.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
>> >> > ...
>> >> > Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
>> >> > Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools
>> >> > unconstitutional.
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> > In America - do fill us in about Canada, eh? - public schools are
>> >> > public
>> >> > property.
>> >>
>> >> why...?... the canadian constitution isn't relevant to your claim that
>> >> the
>> >> u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
>> >
>> > You're the one relying on it for examples - you tell me.
>>
>> you keep invoking it... why...?...
>
> I keep reminding you that you invoked it ;) ;) ;)
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
>> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >> you said, "It is Constitutional reasoning. But then they don't
>> >> >> >> ahve
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> Canada" - on 13102009 @ 7:11pm...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > *American* Constitutional reasoning. You still don't understand
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > difference. Sad.
>> >> >> > Your parents must be so disappointed in you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> lol... apparently, you can't tell the difference between real
>> >> >> english
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> gibberish you've pulled out of your anus... your parents must have
>> >> >> been
>> >> >> siblings... ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL. You still don't understand we're talking about the *American*
>> >> > Constitution,
>> >> > not Canada's. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> lol... apparently, you believe your own stupidity... ;-)
>> >
>> > LOL - apparently, you have no cognizance of your own stupidity :) :)
>>
>> lol... apparently, you believe your stupidity is cleverness... ;-)
>
> LOL apparently you're Canadian.
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
>> >> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
>> >> >> > explicitly
>> >> >> > states the
>> >> >> > right
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now - how is the Canadian Constitution relevant to an American
>> >> >> > legal
>> >> >> > proceeding?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> it's not... why would you think it is...?...
>> >> >
>> >> > Then why quote examples from it...?...
>> >>
>> >> why do you ask...?...
>> >
>> > You don't have a reason? You just write stuff at random? Explains a
>> > lot.
>> > ;) ;)
>>
>> why do you invoke something and then pretend you didn't... hmmm... that
>> explains a lot about your disingenuous nature.... and for you need to
>> whore
>> yourself out at such a base level for attention.... ;-)
>
> Why do you quote the Canadian Constitution and then claim it isn't
> relevant? ;)
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
>> >> >> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
>> >> >> > explicitly
>> >> >> > states
>> >> >> > the right"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> which was an address to your assertion that canada doesn't have
>> >> >> "constitutional reasoning"...
>> >> >
>> >> > See above.
>> >>
>> >> what and/or where...?...
>> >
>> > "here's an excerpt..." ;)
>>
>> ahhh... more context free attention whoring.... ;-)
>
> Klunker denies what he posted ;)
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
>> >> >> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant
>> >> >> > here ->
>> >> >>
>> >> >> it's not and it never has been... why would you think so...?...
>> >> >
>> >> > Then why quote examples from it? ;) ;) ;)
>> >>
>> >> why did you raise it in the first place...?..
>> >
>> > You're the one who quoted from it ;)
>>
>> you invoked it... why...?...
>
> You quoted it - why ;) ;)
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
>> >> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
>> >> > explicitly
>> >> > states the right"
>> >>
>> >> why are you quoting my statement out of context...?... so that you can
>> >> complain about its lack of relevance to your assertion that the u.s.
>> >> constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...?...
>> >
>> > The context is you can't keep it straight that we're talking about the
>> > AMERICAN
>> > Constitution... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
>>
>> lol... then why invoke the canadian constitution in the first
>> place...?...
>
> lol then why did you quote from it ;) ;)
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
>> >> >> have "constitutional reasoning"... do cite where I've denied this
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> simply
>> >> >> accept the fact that other people will recognize your lack of
>> >> >> ethics...
>> >> >> even
>> >> >> if you refuse to...
>> >> >
>> >> > Cry us a river. You need to be reminded of what you wrote.
>> >>
>> >> why do I need to be reminded when you're the one who can't remember
>> >> your
>> >> own
>> >> invocations...?...
>> >
>> > You mean like quoting the First Amendment over and over to you?
>>
>> like you still haven't provided a cite from the constitution which
>> prohibits
>> religious symbols on public property...
>
> You mean like the First Amendment (how many times have I quoted it now?)
>
>
> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
> ...
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> ...
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
>> >> >> > Now - have the courage to explain why you brought it up ->
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I did.. several times now... and here I go again... I provided the
>> >> >> cite
>> >> >> from
>> >> >> the canadian constitution as a debunking of your assertion that
>> >> >> canada
>> >> >> doesn't have such "constitutional reasoning"...
>> >> >
>> >> > Such "reasoning" must be non existent since you admit it has no
>> >> > relevance
>> >> > here.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks!
>> >>
>> >> for what...?...
>> >
>> > Your admission the Canadian Constitution has no relevance here.
>>
>> then why did you invoke it in the first place...?....
>
> Then why did you quote from it in the first place? ;) ;)
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
prohibits religious symbols on public property....
RichTravsky
hmmmm.... the whole thing prohibits the use of religious symbols on public
property as determined by our courts
Held:
Why are you dodging where it says
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
> >> >> >> >> still nothing from the constitution which prohibits the use of
> >> >> >> >> religious
> >> >> >> >> symbols on public property....
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > See above.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I see you're still dodging responsibility for demonstrating where
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> constitution such a prohibition exists....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1st Amendment. See above. Now, show otherwise ->
> >> >>
> >> >> your cite can actually be interpreted as a contradiction to your claim
> >> >> that
> >> >> the u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public
> >> >> property...
> >> >
> >> > Explain how (this oughta be good) ->
> >>
> >> I already did... "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...
> >
> > You didn't. Amendment I is the basis for Stone v Graham.
> >
> > Show otherwise (no dodging this time) ->
>
> hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
> prohibits religious symbols on public property....
hmmm... you're still running from this
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
> >> >> your ineptitude has been noted...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
> >> >> either.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which prohibits
> >> >> religious symbols on public property... your ongoing dodges are noted
> >> >> and
> >> >> archived for posterity...
> >> >
> >> > First Amendment. Again ;) ;) ;)
> >>
> >> hmmmm... still another evasion noted.... ;-)
> >
> > Need to see it again?
> >
> > http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
> > ...
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> > petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> > ...
> >
> > That's the Establishment Clause.
>
> hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
> prohibits religious symbols on public property....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
> >> >> >> providing evidence to substantiate your claim that the constitution
> >> >> >> prohibits religious symbols on public property is once again,
> >> >> >> noted...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Apparently, you can't show that they're allowed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> > Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
> >> >> > Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools
> >> >> > unconstitutional.
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In America - do fill us in about Canada, eh? - public schools are
> >> >> > public
> >> >> > property.
> >> >>
> >> >> why...?... the canadian constitution isn't relevant to your claim that
> >> >> the
> >> >> u.s. constitution prohibits religious symbols on public property...
> >> >
> >> > You're the one relying on it for examples - you tell me.
> >>
> >> you keep invoking it... why...?...
> >
> > I keep reminding you that you invoked it ;) ;) ;)
>
> hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
> prohibits religious symbols on public property....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
> >> >> >> > here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
> >> >> >> > explicitly
> >> >> >> > states the
> >> >> >> > right
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Now - how is the Canadian Constitution relevant to an American
> >> >> >> > legal
> >> >> >> > proceeding?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> it's not... why would you think it is...?...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then why quote examples from it...?...
> >> >>
> >> >> why do you ask...?...
> >> >
> >> > You don't have a reason? You just write stuff at random? Explains a
> >> > lot.
> >> > ;) ;)
> >>
> >> why do you invoke something and then pretend you didn't... hmmm... that
> >> explains a lot about your disingenuous nature.... and for you need to
> >> whore
> >> yourself out at such a base level for attention.... ;-)
> >
> > Why do you quote the Canadian Constitution and then claim it isn't
> > relevant? ;)
>
> hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
> prohibits religious symbols on public property....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
> >> >> >> > "here's an excerpt from the canadian constitution which more
> >> >> >> > explicitly
> >> >> >> > states
> >> >> >> > the right"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> which was an address to your assertion that canada doesn't have
> >> >> >> "constitutional reasoning"...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > See above.
> >> >>
> >> >> what and/or where...?...
> >> >
> >> > "here's an excerpt..." ;)
> >>
> >> ahhh... more context free attention whoring.... ;-)
> >
> > Klunker denies what he posted ;)
>
> hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
> prohibits religious symbols on public property....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
> >> >> >> > Feel free to show how the Canadian Constitution is relevant
> >> >> >> > here ->
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> it's not and it never has been... why would you think so...?...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then why quote examples from it? ;) ;) ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> why did you raise it in the first place...?..
> >> >
> >> > You're the one who quoted from it ;)
> >>
> >> you invoked it... why...?...
> >
> > You quoted it - why ;) ;)
>
> hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
> prohibits religious symbols on public property....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
> >> >> >> > Now - have the courage to explain why you brought it up ->
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I did.. several times now... and here I go again... I provided the
> >> >> >> cite
> >> >> >> from
> >> >> >> the canadian constitution as a debunking of your assertion that
> >> >> >> canada
> >> >> >> doesn't have such "constitutional reasoning"...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Such "reasoning" must be non existent since you admit it has no
> >> >> > relevance
> >> >> > here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks!
> >> >>
> >> >> for what...?...
> >> >
> >> > Your admission the Canadian Constitution has no relevance here.
> >>
> >> then why did you invoke it in the first place...?....
> >
> > Then why did you quote from it in the first place? ;) ;)
>
> hmmm... still no cite to substantiate your claim that the u.s. constitution
> prohibits religious symbols on public property....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
What part of
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
do you not understand? Oh yeah, it's because you're a hoser!
http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/sbr_044MoranisThomas.jpg
;) ;) ;)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B270E83...@hotmMOVEail.com...
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
>> > No answer.
>>
>> your dodge bears no relevance to your claim that the u.s. constitution
>> prohibits religious symbols on public property...
>
> Why are you dodging where it says
>
> "therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of
> the First
> Amendment"
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
....but.... here's a clue, stupid:
"A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments"
"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."
RichTravsky
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
> ....but.... here's a clue, stupid:
>
> "A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments"
>
> "Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> Note
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."
Known as - the Establishment Clause!
....but.... here's a clue, stupid
"...purpose of posting the Ten Commandments...is plainly religious in nature..."
"therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment"
;) ;);)
This is the American Supreme Court case being cited:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
Game, Set, Match. ;-)
Casey Terry
> klunk wrote:
> >
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&inv...
>
> Game, Set, Match. ;-)
I hope you and Klunk don't mind me snipping 300 lines of "yadda
yadda".
C'mon! It's bad etiquette!
But there was a madman in can.politics a few years-ago who was worse
than the nutcase who thinks that Homos should be executed and those
wearing mixed threads on Saturday should end up the same.
He thought that because the Canadian Charter of Rights And Freedoms
begins with:
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the
supremacy of God and the rule of law:"
That it meat "The Church is higher than the Supreme Court"!
All I can say is "there goes a nutter".
Roy
==
I would be in favour of striking out "the supremacy of God" bit as it
is meaningless.
==
Casey Terry
Blame Trudeau! He's the bugger who cooked up the stupid thing!
And he hated Religion. A true member of Quebec's "Silent Revolution"
:)
Casey Terry
Me? I live in Rosedale (Toronto). I have a Unitarian Church near me
and how the bells are going off at 15 minutes before the hour is
driving me up the wall!
I think they need a technician to get in there and fix the clock.
The bells should be sounding off on the hour, not 15 minutes before
that!
I guess I'll just get God on my Blackberry and text him about it. :(
klunk
"Casey Terry" <caseyte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52daa9e9-7e5e-4969...@l2g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 11:14 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>> klunk wrote:
>
>> >
>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&inv...
>>
>> Game, Set, Match. ;-)
>
>
> I hope you and Klunk don't mind me snipping 300 lines of "yadda
> yadda".
>
> C'mon! It's bad etiquette!
>
> But there was a madman in can.politics a few years-ago who was worse
> than the nutcase who thinks that Homos should be executed and those
> wearing mixed threads on Saturday should end up the same.
that's "grog" greg p. carr, who now goes by the nym "usenet"... and he's
stated that homosexuals should be executed after a "fair trial"... which is
an attitude he's adopted because his father came out of the closet and he's
still pissed at that... if you piss him off, he will accuse you of child
molestation... which is likely a projection on his behalf... he's got a bee
in his bonnet for the hell's angels because they once threatened him... and
he's bragged about robbing some gas station and has admitted to spending
time in prison... a total whack-job...
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B3830C2...@hotmMOVEail.com...
....but.... here's a clue, stupid:
"A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments"
"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."
<repetitive stupidity snipped out of mercy>
penny
<caseyte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Me? I live in Rosedale (Toronto). I have a Unitarian Church near me
>and how the bells are going off at 15 minutes before the hour is
>driving me up the wall!
>
>I think they need a technician to get in there and fix the clock.
>
>The bells should be sounding off on the hour, not 15 minutes before
>that!
>
>I guess I'll just get God on my Blackberry and text him about it. :(
Give me church bells all day and every day , over the Muezzin calling
the faithful to prayer five times a day from a loud recording in a
minaret.
Church bells rang all over the world for climate change action during
the Copenhagen conference.
>I guess I'll just get God on my Blackberry and text him about it. :(
BTW if you're talking to god ask him if he really told Dubya to shock
and awe Iraq>;-)
Penny
RichTravsky
....hmmmm.... still ANOTHER cite from the U.S. Constitution supporting American
law concerning that that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
...
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several
pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating
that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion
clauses" of the First Amendment.
...
Here, let me help you by translating this into your native language courtesy of
http://www.adrianspeyer.com/american_english_to_canadian_english_translator.html
American English:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Canadian English:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion eh?
>
> ....but.... here's a clue, stupid:
>
> "A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments"
>
> "Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> Note
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."
...but.... here's a clue, moron:
http://www.adrianspeyer.com/american_english_to_canadian_english_translator.html
American English:
therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment
Canadian English:
therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment eh?
> <repetitive stupidity snipped out of mercy>
Court decision snipped by coward now restored to rub his nose in his ignorance:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
Do you need that translated into Canadian English?
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B46B915...@hotmMOVEail.com...
....but.... clearly, you're too stupid to look up and understand the
definition of "statute".... ;-)
it's too bad you prefer to waste your preciously scarce mental energy on
childish editing of the newsgroup follow-up box.... you're just fucking
pathetic...
RichTravsky
....hmmmm.... still another ignored cite from the US Constitution support
our legal system's prohibition that religious symbols are prohibited from public
property....
Here - I'll dumb it down for you again. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
Here's the First Amendment from the American Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, here's an explanation of the Establishment clause which is from that quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
...
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several
pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating
that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion
clauses" of the First Amendment.
...
Gee! Wasn't that easy? ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
Should I double space for you so you can follow along easier?
Now, here's a decision fmo the US Supreme Court using that clause to prohibit
religious symbols from public property:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39
U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) 449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom
of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular
purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The
pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine
themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the
posting serves no constitutional educational function.
...
There! Even you should have no problem following along!
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
But of course, you're too embarassed to admit you're wrong. So you can be forgiven
if you slink away.
(remaining klunk ignorant drivel mercifully snipped)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B52967A...@hotmMOVEail.com...
try reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading these 5 words
s-l-o-wl-y... and perhaps, get someone to translate them into your native
tongue of obstinate dumbass...
> Congress shall make no law
then get someone to introduce you to a dictionary in order to explain to you
at the elementary school level you clearly are trapped at, what the
definition of "statute" is.... ;-)
....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
you have provided a substantial amount of idiocy, though.... and....
clearly, you're still too stupid to look up and understand the definition of
"statute".... ;-)
it's too bad you prefer to waste your preciously scarce mental energy on
childish editing of the newsgroup follow-up box.... you're even more
pathetic than just fucking pathetic... ;-)
RichTravsky
Try reading this REAL slowly:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments,
purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is
unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
That's from the US Supreme Court ruling. Congress had nothing to do with it. In
America, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of such matters. Period. get
over it.
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Still can't back up your claim? Just fucking pathetic... ;-)
Oh, and for your future reference, in the American legal system, the Constitution
over rules any law, regulation, ordinance, or ... stature. Apparently you're
still too stupid to understand that.
If you think it doesn't, then back up your mouth and cite American law where
that isn't true. Good luck. Of course, you're such a lazy coward, you'll dodge.
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
klunk
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B5941AD...@hotmMOVEail.com...
you have however, done a good job at trimming out the evidence of your
stupidity....clearly, you're too embarrassed by your stupidity to admit
you're too stupid to look up and understand the definition of "statute"....
;-)
it's too bad you prefer to waste your preciously scarce mental energy on
childish games or you might actually learn to avoid walking around with that
egg all over your face... ;-)
Pvt. Wilhelm
> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
>
> ....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
> contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
>
> you have however, done a good job at trimming out the evidence of your
> stupidity....clearly, you're too embarrassed by your stupidity to admit
> you're too stupid to look up and understand the definition of "statute"....
> ;-)
>
> it's too bad you prefer to waste your preciously scarce mental energy on
> childish games or you might actually learn to avoid walking around with that
> egg all over your face... ;-)
Literal interpretations of documents like the US constitution? A
little silly. Over two hundred years of judicial interpretation
using the Constitution as a framework are what's going on.
And Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 starts with
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the
supremacy of God and the rule of law:" does not in any way, shape or
form imply that the Church has influence or power over the rule of law
because God is mentioned first!
klunk
"Pvt. Wilhelm" <pvt.w...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b77593a3-ef9c-4681...@b9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 22, 7:10 pm, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>
>> ....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports
>> your
>> contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
>>
>> you have however, done a good job at trimming out the evidence of your
>> stupidity....clearly, you're too embarrassed by your stupidity to admit
>> you're too stupid to look up and understand the definition of
>> "statute"....
>> ;-)
>>
>> it's too bad you prefer to waste your preciously scarce mental energy on
>> childish games or you might actually learn to avoid walking around with
>> that
>> egg all over your face... ;-)
>
> Literal interpretations of documents like the US constitution? A
> little silly.
certainly nowhere as silly as prolonging a pissing contest on an assertion
derived from such a basis...
> Over two hundred years of judicial interpretation
> using the Constitution as a framework are what's going on.
what's going on is nothing more than two idiots pissing back and forth...
which bears no relationship to anything remotely resembling judicial
interpretation of such a framework...
> And Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 starts with
> "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the
> supremacy of God and the rule of law:" does not in any way, shape or
> form imply that the Church has influence or power over the rule of law
> because God is mentioned first!
although your attempt at an analogy my appear related to the substance of
this pissing contest to you, the very fact that the existence of such a
being as god is merely conjecture is what renders the church incapable of
influence within a sphere of human decision-making built upon a structure of
reason... iow... it's an invalid analogy because the central piece of
contention in this pissing contest isn't about judicial interpretation of
influence or power but of a specific position literally stated within the
founding document.... even more so, this is actually an ongoing thread for
the simple reason that one idiot's adherence to his butchered
misinterpretation is being resisted by another idiot's conviction to
disallow the first idiot from indulging in his illusion of achievement....
RichTravsky
>
> On Jan 22, 7:10 pm, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
> > "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > ....hmmmmm.... still no cite from the u.s. constitution which supports your
> > contention that religious symbols are prohibited from public property....
> >
> > you have however, done a good job at trimming out the evidence of your
> > stupidity....clearly, you're too embarrassed by your stupidity to admit
> > you're too stupid to look up and understand the definition of "statute"....
> > ;-)
> >
> > it's too bad you prefer to waste your preciously scarce mental energy on
> > childish games or you might actually learn to avoid walking around with that
> > egg all over your face... ;-)
>
> Literal interpretations of documents like the US constitution? A
> little silly. Over two hundred years of judicial interpretation
> using the Constitution as a framework are what's going on.
Indeed!