Author Topic: WTG to the ACLU (Read 3389 times)

Charon · « **Reply #75 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:10:25 AM »

You can proselytize on public property (such as a street corner) and I have no problem with that. "Escuse me, no, I dont want the Jack Chick bible tract, thanks..." and walk on down the road. In a public school, supported by my tax dollars it's a different matter. Especially since by religion we are talking about (lets get real here) only a select subset of religions with a big gap between Christianity and a few others like Juadism, etc.

Charon

Sandman · « **Reply #76 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:10:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
She was undoubtedly denied her first amendment rights and I hope she is able to take it to the supreme court.

IANAL, but I'm betting she loses.

rpm · « **Reply #77 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:11:50 AM »

In this case "public" refers to paid for and operated by taxpayer funding. The seperation of church and state applies. Don't say it doesn't because the SCOTUS has ruled on that already.

I wonder Luke if you would be this upset about this if she had been Muslim and not Christian. For some reason certain Christians feel they can force their religion upon people at any time or place. They then get all upset the world is out to get them when they are told to hush.

You want to preach? Go to the church. You want to learn? Go to school.

Sandman · « **Reply #78 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:11:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Proof?

Google is your friend.

lukster · « **Reply #79 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:13:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
You can proselytize on public property (such as a street corner) and I have no problem with that. "Escuse me, no, I dont want the Jack Chick bible tract, thanks... and walk on down the road. In a public school, supported by my tax dollars it's a different matter. Especially since by religion we are talking (lets get real here) about only a select subset of religions bith a big gap between Christianity and a few others like Juadism, etc.

Charon

The supreme court has ruled it's not different and that students have the right to free speech in schools. It is incumbent on the schools to prove that the exercise of that free speech would interfere with the education process.

Your taxes pay for that street corner too btw.

Sandman · « **Reply #80 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:14:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... I realize that abortion mills are private factories and that protestors have no right to block access.. I would not want the aclu to try to give them that right... I was talking about protesters on public property not blocking access...

Have protestors of this type been stopped from protesting?

lukster · « **Reply #81 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:18:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Google is your friend.

My google skills are usually pretty good but I'm coming up short here. Maybe you're referring to a local or city ordinance where you live?

lukster · « **Reply #82 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:20:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Have protestors of this type been stopped from protesting?

I think they have created a very large region around abortion clinics in which no protesting is allowed.

It was reversed in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/28/scotus.abortion/

Sandman · « **Reply #83 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:21:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
My google skills are usually pretty good but I'm coming up short here. Maybe you're referring to a local or city ordinance where you live?

Everson v. Board of Education

Sandman · « **Reply #84 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:23:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
I think they have created a very large region around abortion clinics in which no protesting is allowed.

It was reversed in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/28/scotus.abortion/

I think it varies state by state. http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.abortion/

lukster · « **Reply #85 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:24:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Everson v. Board of Education

Evidently google is not your friend. Try again?

Everson v. Board of Education
330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Docket Number: 52
Abstract

Argued:
November 20, 1946

Decided:
February 10, 1947

Facts of the Case

A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy.

Question Presented

Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. After detailing the history and importance of the Establishment Clause, Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. The law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was simply a law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.

Sandman · « **Reply #86 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:26:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Evidently google is not your friend. Try again?

Keep going... "Establishment Clause"

lukster · « **Reply #87 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:29:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Keep going... "Establishment Clause"

I see nothing about prohibiting proseltyzing on public property here:

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.""

rpm · « **Reply #88 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:31:33 AM »

You're going to have to spoon feed this one Sandy.

Sandman · « **Reply #89 on:** July 25, 2006, 12:34:03 AM »

Quote

The next landmark ruling came down in 1947. In the case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and state," the Court's foundational reinterpretation of the Constitution was complete. From 1947 forward, the Court has ruled with regularity on religious issues, in direct violation of the original meaning of the First Amendment. Their rulings, and those of lower courts (federal and State) have become the "law" of "separation of church and state." - Source

Wikipedia can also be your friend