Page 2 - Santorum.... Hated Him For Awhile

Odd... the newspaper (local, of course), has the articles online, but they're not the same as the ones that are in the actual paper (they appear to be cut short):

http://www.pennlive.com/search/inde...00.xml?pennnews
http://www.pennlive.com/search/inde...02.xml?pennnews

The one talking about the lawsuit, is, I believe, the one related to the cross incident. The article in the actual paper says basically this:

She wore a small cross necklace on a chain to work and was warned on several occasions that it violated the "seperation of church and state" style laws that govern appropriate conduct and dress in state run schools. She refused on several occasions to cover or remove the cross, and was eventually suspended for one year without pay. She is now challenging that suspension with the help of the law group that was founded by Pat Robertson (the American Society for Law and Justice? something like that...).

When I get home, I'll type the relevant portion of the article up so you all have the actual text of it and post it offsite for ya'll to peruse.

Ok rod k, you asked for it
This is directed at rod k and Ctb the rest of you can ignore it if you like









I have more where that caim from.

Eclipce

Irrelevent. This is not from an official document, nor is it a discussion by the author of an official document in regards the meaning of the document.

Ditto

Ditto, but even more so as it is a discussion of his opinion regarding scripture, not law of the US

Again, nothing to do with an opinion of law or official US documents.

More of the same.

FINALLY, a comment regarding US law. Unfortunately, he is WRONG. Common Law PREDATES christianity.

An opinion without basis in fact, nor even an attempt to offer factual evidence.

Try to get ANYTHING that offers FACTUAL evidence regarding the foundation and law of the US, not simple platitudes regarding the faith of individuals with "name recognition".

Now, to offer something factual. Treaties entered into by the US (ratified by the Senate and all that) are in FACT, law.

To offer such evidence, look at the following excerpt from the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" entered into Nov 4, 1796:

Sorry, those articles are about a seperate story.

If this is the reason for the suspension, I'll have to side with the aide. There's a difference between using a position of authority to promote a religion and the personal expression of one's beliefs through the wearing of a crucifix. If she'd worn a T-shirt that said "If you aren't a Christian then you are amoral, unethical, damned scum." I could see it

Rod k I have that quote in my book as well.

This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortend and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.
While the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statment is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Eclipce

Yea, I know. I came home at lunch and pulled out yesterday's paper, but I can't find the article that's in the paper online anywhere. Stupid. I'll type it all up tonight after I get done (there's a car show in Carlisle, and I have to go over to Carlisle to pick up someone's glasses... should be an interesting drive ).

As for Eclipce...

Yer a funny one aintcha? The personal opinions of a bunch of people who happened to be involved in helping to shape the early history of our country in no way suggests that the laws were based on those opinions. Your drawing nonexistant connections between the religious affiliations of various people and what they actually did when it came to shaping the country, so stop it.

Oh.... and
THAT is a completely different subject. I have no doubt in my mind that this country has, throughout most or all of its years, been a predonimantely Christian nation as far as the society goes. Of course... we're talking law and politics, not society, so I suggest you stay on track.

Please TRY to stay on topic. Considering the US to be a Christian nation has nothing to do with the discussion. Since the majority of the population consider themselves such it can be taken as a valid statement. It has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand as created by YOU when you said "what this nation was founded upon" when referring to YOUR quote of bible verse.

The challenge still stands before you: post something factual that PROVES this country was founded upon the christian bible.

Ctb and rod k, my last post was in response to rod's quote.

I have decided to discontinue this conversation with you as I could quote almost anything and it would not change your view on the subject. Infact I do not believe that it would change even if the constitution itself said that this nation was founded on Christianity, much less all of the quotes I could provide that say as much.

I believe some of this is my fault as I should have learned the lesson that the Bible teaches about such things.

(Mat 7:6 NASB) "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Good day to you all.

Eclipce

Typical. You have an indefensible position and resort to personal attacks. (BTW, I'm sure using a quote from your book of fairy tales to make your personal attack makes you think it's acceptable).

Funny. I was going to suggest we end the discussion unless you came up with a valid response. You desperately want to believe the US was founded on Christianity since you can use it to defend your personal world view including all it's prejudices and hatreds. Of course, since belief in a supreme deity is based on faith, it's quite easy to delude yourself on other matters, too.

rod and ctb: 1
eclipce: 0

Eclipce: you only posted two quotes that were even relevant to the topic you brought up. The one rod ripped apart (and, incididentally, it fails the fallacy test. It is a pretty good example of the "after this therefore because of that" fallacy, iir my fallacies correctly). Honestly, I'm not even sure why you offered up Webster's quote. He was a great contributor to early education in America and helped shaped the Americanized English language we know today, but he was not a law man (though he desperately wanted to be) and I don't think he was qualified to speak about the foundations of this nation since, afaik, he never had a hand in it's creation (correct me if I'm wrong). And dude.. stop quoting the damn Bible... that's what got you into this mess to begin with. The Bible, just like any other religious text, is an extremely biased source of information and of questionable historical accuracy at best. Unless you WANT to get laughed out of every logical, intellectual discussion, STOP QUOTING IT IN THOSE TYPES OF DISCUSSIONS.

Anyway, on to far more interesting things:

Agreed. I don't feel that any entity has a right to prevent a person from displaying their beliefs on whatever unless they're violating some other (sensible) law or someone else's right. Examples: You can't run around naked in public to "express" your nature-oriented beliefs because it's a potential health risk and you can't go busting into people's houses to tell them about your religion because it's a privacy invasion (I HATE dealing with Jehovah's witnesses and door to door salespeople. I politely ask them to leave, then slam the door in their faces when they don't).

In other news, apparently Hero was right and we are a pretty f***ed up state. We lead the states when it comes to the number of fatal school shootings. In case you don't know why I'm bringing this up, this past Wednesday, a 14 year old kid took a bunch of knives and crude molotav cocktails to the HS I graduated from (less than 5 miles from my work and home) and started lobbing them at the school. He was held at bay by staff who blocked his entrance into the building until the police arrived and he surrendered to them. No one was hurt because, not being the brightest bulb in the chandelier (obviously), he didn't light any of them before he threw them. Then, yesterday, a kid at Red Lion (which is about 30 minutes from here) took a pistol to school, stood up in the cafeteria shortly after 7:30am, and shot the principal in the chest as he walked past, then himself in the head. The kid was pronounced dead at the scene, the principal died on the way to the hospital.

And, on a final note, what's with that damned Server 2003 ad? OOOooooo... just clicked it:


Hmmm let's see... 3 hours, I'll have to reboot about 30 times at 4 minutes a boot which takes up 2 hours. I'll have to restart the browser (you try it through a browser B.O. style apparently) ever 5 minutes at a minute a pop, so that leaves me with about 50 minutes to try it and I'm sure most of that will be spent trying to figure out how to run this damned DOS tool that worked really great and did everything I need up until Windows 2000 came out and broke it. Great deal!

Hey, it ain't MY state I just happen to be residing here for the moment. I'll be moving in a couple of months... unfortunately back to NY which isn't home either

I just happened upon this so this will be my final word in this post
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunne...A_Christia.html

By the way, you two have made more "personal" attacks on me than I have ever on you. If I did make any attacks then please know that it was not intended.

Eclipce