Whister you are wasting your time. Stu does not accept the fact that the Supreme Court is capable of interpreting what a previous Supreme court case decided (held). Arguing the law and legal framework with STU is a complete waste of time. He is just there to avoid admitting his view of he world is wrong. By the way he is not even the orginal Stu - he is an impostor. Here I will prove it to you. Stu -- If the Supreme Court 100 years ago in making its decision used as its reasoning that that America is a spanish speaking country-- Would you argue about whether the Supreme court declared America was a spanish speaking country? Now if in the 1980s in a U.s. Supreme court decison 3 justices cited the earlier case and said that an earlier court held America was a Spanish speaking country, would you STU still argue that the Supreme Court never held that America was a Spanish speaking country. Watch this. Stu will never admit the U.S. Supreme Court held that America was a Christian nation. Even though I quoted him the Original decision and I quoted the recent case where 3 justices said the original decision was the law of the land.
"You have now stated the school has the right to declare the venue..... " a college professor WITHIN a classroom IS the lord of his classroom" Then I say to you.... " a Principal WITHIN a school IS the lord of his school"" false... the case law, and common sense makes this abundantly clear - the distinction the campus, outside the classrooms, labs, etc. is a PUBLIC place the classrooms are not a public place the classes serve a narrow specific purpose and content speech restrictions are obviously valid. of course it is not a 1st amendment violation for a teacher to limit, for example, speech in a physics class - TO PHYSICS as case law, and common sense, makes abundantly clear - on a CAMPUS (ex classrooms, etc.) it is illegal censorship (public campus) to make content restrictions on speech i get real tired of sophistry. have you ever read case law? or the constitution?
You have a very distorted view of my position jem, but then you usually do . My intent was to request whister, and at often times before - yourself, to examine and query, instead of blindly and unquestioningly accepting what is handed down. to you . I asked straightforward and pertinent questions. The response always is the Supreme Court says this - the Supreme Court says that. Only when you think the Supreme Court is in support of course. But when Christian apologists like you and whister don't like something, you plead special case and cry persecution. When you do want something you just state words to the effect that the Supreme Court says so., sometimes even when it doesnt ! But you are unable to supply any justification for your remarks past Court or Christianity. You can't think for yourselves, you just suck up to a narrow minded set oif beliefs and selectively chosen Supreme Court edicts when it suits. However, you have no qualms in labeling lthe Court a bunch of lefty liberals when you conclude it Rules against your precious and sensitive Christian demands. I asked whister what I consider to be a genuine and specific question on where the line is drawn in reality. He said there was none in content , then immediately proceeded to draw more than one, to add conditions of venue and mode . When I go on to query - so there is not only a line drawn but lines drawn - he gets ambiguous, relies on the Supreme Court, but wont say exactly how. When further circumstances are introduced. He feigns sophistry is at play. Typical, he can't answer so it must be the question and the questioner playing at sophistry. The line is where the Supreme Court says it is when he likes it drawn in a particular place to suit his Christian beliefs and biases , but it is not drawn in the same place when he thinks it should be somewhere else. Look, in the matter of this thread, Malhotra sees that not being able to bash homosexuals and homosexuality is an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. Funny how she or you or whister I dare say, do not see it as her right to be hateful and abusive in college to other students NO. it's her religion under attack , not her right to be a bigot in a learning venue irrespective of any consequences. How strange that is when I give a similar example from a different religion whister calls it incitement to commit an act, even though there is no incitement whatsoever, he displays his subjective approach by showing it is only the lack of a Christian message in such speech, which turns it into incitement.. As for you, it doesn't matter how many times you are shown no Supreme Court anywhere in America has ever stated America is a Christian nation anytime, anywhere , and no matter how often it is shown to you the one Court quote you use says no such thing, you just keep on repeating it as if it will make it true., even though it isnât ! Get over it jem. That brand of Christian brainwash you are using doesnât reach the places thinking for yourself can.
In PUBLIC CITIZEN v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), JUSTICE KENNEDY, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring in the judgment, wrote: The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its lengthy review of the "mass of organic utterances" establishing that "this is a Christian nation," and which were taken to prove that it could not "be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation." Id., at 471. NOW TO BE CLEAR THE COURT JUST TOLD YOU THE CENTRAL SUPPORT AND THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION. How the hell can you claim to interpret the Trinity case better than 3 U.S. Supreme Court justices? And this is the US Supreme Court they were citing There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law . . . not Christianity with an established church . . . but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in The People v. Ruggles, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: "The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice. . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions]. "And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, this Court . . . observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law ...." These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. SEE THAT STU THIS IS JUST PART OF THE SURVEY OF THE STATES AND THEIR ENDORSEMENT OF RELIGION AND CHRISTINITY. NOTE THE VERY LAST LINE "THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION".
do you have a shortcut on your keyboard marked "the bleedin' obvious response button" Repeating doesn't help. Try altering the wording instead... Oh dear look, you are doing. Let's see what happens when you only choose the part of a sentence you want to support a biased view. "THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION". Woo, I can do that too ... "the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister ." ez enough, but a bit pathetic jem..
Never has a person gone to such lengths to avoid reading English. Even then I could never imagine a non lawyer claiming to interpret cases better than 3 prominent Supreme Court Judges in 1989. You just keep kidding yourself. I realize you might have some sort of schizoid reaction if you realized that this great nation was built on the back of Christianity.
You can't objectively discuss this jem you never have been able to, because you are too emotionally motivated like a moth to the Christian lamp light. You just keep getting burned. It is also off topic for the thread in case you hadn't noticed.
So Stu you are saying 3 supreme court justices misunderstood the central support and the ultimate conclusion of the Trinity case and that you can read Supreme Court cases more authoritively than the Supreme court. I wont even get into the multiple other reasons you are wrong.
just for the sake of semantical clarity, it is reasonable to claim this is a christian nation, since the VAST majority of citizens ARE christian depends what you mean by christian nation but it's arguable we have a secular GOVERNMENT though. this is NOT a christian government, that would be blatantly unconstitional, since our constitution prohibits an "establish"ment of a religion this is a nation where a simple check of the stats shows (relatively) high church attendance (comparatively certainly), relatively high belief in the (so called) christian god, etc. however, this is also a nation that unlike many others (england comes to mind) DOES NOT have an OFFICIAL RELIGION, and i am darn glad we don't depends what u mean by christian nation, but if u mean nation in a sense of the people within, and not the governmnet structure, then the claim that this is a christian nation is reasonable
of course, the more important point is that EVERYBODY has the civil rights to speak their mind, and express opinions, even those that bigots like zzz... find "hateful" , "oppressive" or just plain icky this right applies to christians, wiccans, buddhists, communists, and anybody else -whether or not that speech is "hateful" and thank (insert specific deity, nonspecific deity, or nonreligtious symbol here) for that. unlike, say (Canada, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Germany, France, etc.) we do not ban speech that is offensive, that vilifies a religion, any religion, or any "protected group" - because we value freedom of expression OVER enforced (so called) civility by Big Brother. we don't let Big Brother tell us what ideas are proper for the public forum we recognize that FREE CITIZENS (vs. subjects) can make up their own minds about ideas (not the govt.) and that the best remedy in a free society for BAD SPEECH, is GOOD SPEECH we do not (compare to Canada) outlaw this stuff it's what makes us great (among other things) and if one is not willing to defend the RIGHT of the people that we perceive as hateful, to spew their rhetoric, then we do not deserve the right to spew our own ideas. that's the fundamental tenet of our constitutional rights. that's why the 1st amendment is FIRST