Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Apr 11, 2006.

  1. jem

    jem

    Yeah every lawyer with brain damage.


    Here read what the Supreme Court said about the decision again. Notice what the "central support" for the ultimate conclusion langauge. See if that snaps you out of your delusions.

    You see the court in Trinity found that the "mass of organic utterences" (state courts establishing that their states were Christian) meant as a whole the U.S. was a Christian Nation.



    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.



    And this is Trinity...
    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".

    This is Established by the Trinity Court and the States themselves.
     
    #141     Apr 27, 2006
  2. stu

    stu

    ....pathetic jem , you really are
     
    #142     Apr 27, 2006