See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Judge Bans Religious Song From School
Source:
UPI
URL Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04 ... rom-school/UPI-40081239944963/
Published: Apr 19, 2009
Author: UPI
Post Date: 2009-04-19 17:51:39 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 2069
Comments: 79
JACKSONVILLE, Fla., April 17 (UPI) -- A federal judge has banned a Florida elementary school from having children sing a country song, "In God We Still Trust," at a school assembly. The lyrics attack the principal of separation of church and state, U.S. District Judge Harvey Schlesinger said. He issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday against the Webster School in St. Augustine, The Jacksonville Times-Union reported. While some religious songs can be sung in public schools, "In God We Still Trust" by Diamond Rio is "patently religious and proselytizing," the judge said. He cited some of the lyrics: "There's no separation. ... We're one nation under Him ... Now there are those among us who want to push Him out and erase His name from everything this country is all about ... Now it's time for all believers to make our voices heard." The parents of two Webster students filed the lawsuit in March, saying their children were being forced to endorse views they do not share.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-37) not displayed.
.
.
.
#38. To: Deasy (#29)
(Edited)
I agree with that statement. Personally, I think the song lyrics are blatant hypocrisy at best. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition WTH are you talking about ? The government has a clear set of guidelines with which to operate.
The school is acting with governmental authority here. He's obligated to restrain the government's hand. It does not have the power to compel religious expression. I don't know the judge but he made the correct ruling.
What about Father Charles Coughlin? His radio audience was larger than any single church congregation's and people were more aware of the propaganda than you realize, now that history has been sanitized and re-written. The fact is Americans wanted no part of the war in Europe which is why baiting Japan (Germany's ally) into Pearl Harbor was necessary. When Americans died (The Lusitania, Pearl Harbor) we had all the reason we'd ever need to fight in two wars and our men and boys damn sure weren't volunteering to "make the world safe for Israel." ____________________________ (Ezra) "Pound (another influential radio voice-HD) was also frequently visited by his protegé, a Library of Congress researcher named Eustace Mullins. Pound commissioned Mullins to write a book about the history of the Federal Reserve and to tell it like a detective story. Pound believed that the bankers in charge of the Federal Reserve and their associates in the Bank of England were responsible for getting the United States into both World Wars, in an effort to drive up government debt beyond sustainable levels (the national debt indeed rose astronomically because of the wars). The book, Secrets Of The Federal Reserve, charges that bankers hide behind the screen of the central banks and pull political strings to drive countries into the war, creating immense profits for themselves as the principal beneficiaries of wartime debt. Pound advocated an abandonment of the current system of money being created by private bankers. He favored government issued currency[20] with no interest to pay, preventing the need for an income tax and national debt, much like the system used by the Pennsylvania Colony from 1723 to 1764.[citation needed] Pound argued that his views on money aligned with those of Thomas Jefferson, as well as with Benjamin Franklin's Colonial Scrip." And, have you forgotten Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh?
Far fewer Americans in those days were Catholic, and Coughlin was effectively sidelined for the majority of Americnas in the mainstream media.
And just who came up with this so-called "principle?" Could it be a lawyer's opinion (legal revisionism/legislation for the communist and jewish causes) or might it be in the Constitution somewhere? Gee I wonder.... It was a lawyers opinion, Thomas Jefferson to be exact. The separation of church and state is the first amendment, the prohibition against religious tests in the fifth Article, and the total lack of power granted to Congress to regulate, or be regulated by religion. The separation of church and state is the name for the concept. Just like the Constitution follows the separation of powers, despite not actually having the term in it. The Constitution gives the state no power over religion and the church no power over the state. This is some pretty basic US history guys, its sad seeing so many supposed Constitutionalists so ignorant about its very basic history.
When Americans died (The Lusitania, Pearl Harbor) we had all the reason we'd ever need to fight in two wars and our men and boys damn sure weren't volunteering to "make the world safe for Israel." Thank you. I was going to see if Big Deasy possessed this knowledge; now he/she has no excuses ! ;-)
There's room for debate as to how much restraint the first amendment can place on public servants who are expressing their personal opinions. That's not the case when the school assigns children to sing songs.
Go to Arlington sometime and look at all the crosses there. The same is true for our cemetery at Normandy. These people believed they were doing God's work. A strong appeal to Christian morals was essential in American recruiting efforts.
I think its kind of funny that many claim the US is founded of Christianity when only 2 on the commandments were ever illegal, maybe 2.5 (if you count perjury as being the 9th commandment). And Commandments 1,2 and 3 are specifically granted as our most basic right under the first amendment.
The Myth of Separation of Church and State Posted on November 11, 2004 12:00 AM by Joel Comm Ask the average American which constitution the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in and the majority will look at you as though only a moron wouldn't know the answer to the question. The most common reply will be "The United States Constitution". Imagine the surprise of these same people when they discover that not only does the phrase NOT appear in the U.S. Constitution, but the words DO appear in a version of the Russian communist constitution! David Barton has written an excellent piece explaining how the concept of separation has been totally redefined and turned on its head by those who would seek to supress the place of religion and faith in America. Here is an excerpt of interest... Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush. Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the 'establishment of a particular form of Christianity' by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination. Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained: The article is well-documented and researched, and Barton is an expert in this arena, having dedicated years of studies to understanding the issue. It is well worth your examination.
Hey, I'm not happy about our sheeple doing the NWO's bloody bidding any more than you are. Let's just work with facts and not feelings.
Has the government ever put even a dent in your sin ?
I disagree because the 10 commandments themselves are a superset of the 7 Noahide laws. By definition, they include them. Coral Ridge was Moore's primary supporter, and they're Zionist to the hilt. Dr. D. James Kennedy was only "Zionist-Noahide" to the extent that he was incorporated. He built his popularity as a Puritan in opposition to "Spring break bikini hedonism" in Ft. Lauderdale, and made peace with Mr. ewe gno Hudi in the required ways to go national (Jerry Falwell had to have an "epiphany" and suddenly realize that he was wrong about Segregation.) Both of these successful TV pastors shilled for Israeli resettlement orgs and such, and a strict reading of their beliefs supports the premise that this is a Christian act. (because these Jews will be Christians after the Second Coming.) Now I won't support it and I don't like it (or the special immigration privileges for supposedly poisecuted Russian Jews) but I won't label those who pragmatically decided to do it as "Noahide". Religious hustling is not the sole province of Jews. Christians are quite good at it in fact, and they require no grad school courses from Zionists to perfect their schemes.
Between Kennedy and Steinem, it's no wonder the white population is declining in America.
The dividing line seems clear to me. When they are acting in their official role none is allowed. When they aren't (and are truly exerting no pressure, direct or indirect, and using no powers, or government property) they are allowed total freedom to express personal opinion. The funniest part about the whole thing is the same churches who espouse the lie that there is no separation of church and state owe their entire existence to the separation of church and state. Do they really want an America where Texas and Calfornia are paying pedophile priests because their citizens establish a state Catholic church? What they are really saying is they want the government to preach for them, and to hell with following the US constitution. Though I'm guessing most here are ignorant, and are just parroting bad information they got from other conservatives.
LOL You calling other 4um'ers 'ignorant' is funny. Ha ha !
You maybe too stupid to realize it but you are essentially arguing for a more powerful government. A government that can religiously indoctrinate your children. I'm arguing that the government cannot do so. Go ahead and give big government access to your child's soul. Do you really think they are going teach them the bible? Nope. Go ahead establish an American church and people like me would infest it, then destroy religion in America for ever. Go to Europe and see how countries with no separation of church and state are doing in religiosity. Some of the most atheist nations on earth have state protestant churches.
LOL You calling other 4um'ers 'ignorant' is funny. Ha ha ! The ones arguing that the government has any power to teach religion, yes. They are ignorant or malevolent. Most people here are patriots, if not misguided, so I assume they are ignorant.
Now the idiot savant is calling me stoooopid. LOL
Go jerk off or something. [Edit: Take advantage of that God hating woody you worked up]
Go jerk off or something. [Edit: Take advantage of that God hating woody you worked up] Everyone sees your retreat into indecency for what it is. I take great pleasure that you probably know that.
I take great pleasure in putting punks like you on BOZO and forgetting you exist. Bye !
Great point. In principle, 4um posters say that they want less government. If that principle were strictly followed, such restraints (which I believe exist in the Constitution) would block a lot of secularist and Christian reliance on government to further their social objectives.
Bye ! Cowardly little pricks like you disgust me. You pick a fight then bozo me as you claim victory. Well, have a good life being that guy who is always angry but never speaks out when challenged. If you ever want to debate I'll be here, just expect to be called on your insult and run tactics. Have a good night.
You've been censored!
Great point. In principle, 4um posters say that they want less government. If that principle were strictly followed, such restraints (which I believe exist in the Constitution) would block a lot of secularist and Christian reliance on government to further their social objectives. I don't even understand their train of thought. They one the one hand claim that liberals control the government and education system (and they definitely right about the latter), but then on the other hand argue the government should teach children religion!??!? They aren't even smart enough to wait until after they are in power to ask for that kind of power.
He has every right to censor himself by bozoing me. It only effects him. But I have the right to call him out for being a cowardly intellectual lightweight.
And, just who were these mainstream media giants (on radio-no TV to speak of back then) who minimized the influence of Fr. Coughlin? Have we heard of them? Besides FDR and Walter Winchell (who had their followers and detractors) there was no "swing vote" or media personalities vying for it. You are mistaken or more likely simply wishing it to be true and with no way to validate it.
I understand the mention of Steinem but, which Kennedy? If Dr. D. James Kennedy supported some plan to destroy the family and limit the white birth rate I'm not aware of it. I won't assume anything, I'll just wait for your reply.
I've listened to D. James Kennedy, and I wouldn't say that he inspires people in a natural sort of family way. I think the number of children people have is more of a function of their economic expectations. They don't need a church to tell them to be monogamous or enthusiastically parental.
You obviously haven't listened to him lately because he died in 2007. But, regarding your observation above, so what? I don't understand what you feel his role should have been and why you would lump him in with Gloria. (an early militant feminist who was later busted for shopping for lingerie to please her man! A big diff between her and her early foxhole buddy, the "homely as DAWGshit Betty Friedan" who allegedly physically abused her poor husband) And, in any case once Steinem was exposed as CIA funded how can she be credited with anything? She's no more responsible for the growth of feminism than Sirhan Bishara Sirhan is responsible for the assassination of Robert Kennedy. (his murder was also a CIA op) In fact my friend, I'm sorta getting the feeling that you like to nip and tuck and stuff whoever into whatever mold without the benefit of any supporting facts, just to create the illusion of cogent arguments. You've implied that Judge Moore and perhaps all well known Christian activists and pastors are Noahide. And, that arguably overly-broad brush stroke may be difficult to validate because it's little more than a simplistic, all encompassing explanation for a very complex set of circumstances. If you have to go with a simplistic, bumper sticker one liner philosophy then why not blame the Jesuits? I mean, doesn't The Pope (PBUH) wear a Yarmulke? ...strange.....
I've looked and I'll be damned, I just can't find it there.. must not have listen to my Government School Teacher enough.. I'll go stand in the corner now..
Just where in the sam hell, is this Judge when it comes to the Gay Lobby and their shit!??????
Probably having dinner with Bruce under the bench.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition They both have had a strong interest in wielding the power of government to transform the ethics and behavior of the American people. Dominionists, and that describes the Coral Ridge crowd (as well as Roy Moore) have demonstrated again and again their affinity for Israel. D. James Kennedy even attributes the Holocaust to Darwinism, and had worked tirelessly to impose creationism "science" curriculum in America's public schools. Both Steinem and Kennedy were government-hugging tyrants who are phony friends of liberty.
Selective judicial activism is what I call it.
Much of his Darwin-type of stuff (books for sale) were a real intellectual stretch and, I suppose it's possible that I didn't analyze them properly, and I missed that and other "incongruities". I see your point. Thank you.
We'll never have real liberty until we restrict nearly all use of government power. So many want to use Uncle Sam as a club to beat their values into others, both here and abroad. "My values trump your values," they think. Anyone with enough money to pay for a lobbyist bearing gifts can get to the head of the line. That leaves out most Americans who can hardly afford to fly to Washington DC, let alone have $300 cocktails with his congress critter. That's never an obstacle for AIPAC.
Very good.
Prior to the government take over of the education system "separation of church and state" was a mute point.If folks want religious doctrines taught to their little mush heads then pull them out of the public education system.
Comments (79 - 79) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestthink the case is pretty well made here that the school was trying to require kids to listen to and participate in the singing of this song. Non-religious children or children of other faiths would not feel comfortable with this music.
However, neither the judge or the principle he summons are concerned with altruism or children's welfare.
#39. To: Deasy (#37)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#40. To: IndieTX (#38)
#41. To: Deasy (#32)
Without American interference in the two world wars, there would be no Israel. Troops were willing to go because their churches told them it was the right thing to do.
#42. To: HOUNDDAWG (#41)
#43. To: IndieTX, all (#26)
#44. To: HOUNDDAWG (#41)
The fact is Americans wanted no part of the war in Europe which is why baiting Japan (Germany's ally) into Pearl Harbor was necessary.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#45. To: Rhino369 (#43)
#46. To: Rotara (#44)
I was going to see if Big Deasy possessed this knowledge; now he/she has no excuses ! ;-)
#47. To: Deasy, all (#37)
Which of the 10 commandments would you have our government enforce?
#48. To: Rhino369 (#43)
here kitty kitty
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#49. To: Deasy (#46)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#50. To: Rhino369 (#47)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#51. To: Deasy (#35)
You'll not find any Zionist-Noahide Jews in Roy Moore's "commandments-in-the-courtroom-and-courthouse-entrance" camp.
#52. To: HOUNDDAWG (#51)
#53. To: Deasy (#45)
There's room for debate as to how much restraint the first amendment can place on public servants who are expressing their personal opinions. That's not the case when the school assigns children to sing songs.
#54. To: Rhino369 (#53)
I'm guessing most here are ignorant
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#55. To: Rotara (#50)
Has the government ever put even a dent in your sin ?
#56. To: Rotara (#54)
#57. To: Rhino369 (#55)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#58. To: Rhino369 (#56)
(Edited)
Seriously
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#59. To: Rotara (#58)
#60. To: Rhino369 (#59)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#61. To: Rhino369 (#55)
...you are essentially arguing for a more powerful government. A government that can religiously indoctrinate your children.
#62. To: Rotara (#60)
I take great pleasure in putting punks like you on BOZO and forgetting you exist.
#63. To: Rhino369 (#62)
#64. To: Deasy (#61)
#65. To: Deasy (#63)
You've been censored!
#66. To: Deasy (#42)
Far fewer Americans in those days were Catholic, and Coughlin was effectively sidelined for the majority of Americnas in the mainstream media.
#67. To: Deasy (#52)
Between Kennedy and Steinem, it's no wonder the white population is declining in America.
#68. To: HOUNDDAWG (#67)
I won't assume anything, I'll just wait for your reply.
#69. To: Deasy (#68)
I've listened to D. James Kennedy, and I wouldn't say that he inspires people in a natural sort of family way.
#70. To: IndieTX (#26)
or might it be in the Constitution somewhere?
#71. To: Deasy (#29)
Schlesinger also wrote that, as third-graders, the younger plaintiffs are "more easily influenced by their teachers" and "extremely sensitive to signs of disapproval and disappointment from the same teachers and their classmates."
#72. To: Refinersfire (#71)
Just where in the sam hell, is this Judge when it comes to the Gay Lobby and their shit!??????
#73. To: HOUNDDAWG (#69)
I don't understand what you feel his role should have been and why you would lump him in with Gloria.
#74. To: Refinersfire (#71)
Just where in the sam hell, is this Judge
#75. To: Deasy (#73)
They both have had a strong interest in wielding the power of government to transform the ethics and behavior of the American people. Dominionists, and that describes the Coral Ridge crowd (as well as Roy Moore) have demonstrated again and again their affinity for Israel. D. James Kennedy even attributes the Holocaust to Darwinism, and had worked tirelessly to impose creationism "science" curriculum in America's public schools. Both Steinem and Kennedy were government-hugging tyrants who are phony friends of liberty.
#76. To: HOUNDDAWG, grace_is_by_our_lord (#75)
(Edited)
#77. To: Deasy (#76)
We'll never have real liberty until we restrict nearly all use of government power. So many want to use Uncle Sam as a club to beat their values into others, both here and abroad. "My values trump your values," they think. Anyone with enough money to pay for a lobbyist bearing gifts can get to the head of the line. That leaves out most Americans who can hardly afford to fly to Washington DC, let alone have $300 cocktails with his congress critter. That's never an obstacle for AIPAC.
#78. To: Rhino369 (#43)
.
.
.