Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Cleon]

fine. provide better evidence. Because 450 student complains in a two year span of time does not convince me there is any sort of major issue.

More to the point, the fact that there are complaints does not bear on whether praying in school is illegal, as DOC has claimed. Every year administrators push the envelope a little bit and find themselves facing a complaint and/or lawsuit; matters relating to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, all sorts of different rights.

The fact that people not only complain but win these cases indicates that not only is DOC incorrect, but that cases of students being unduly denied their First Amendment rights are being handled correctly.

 

[slingblade]

Oooh, Cleon! I think I'm having my first Dalek crush.

Excellent points!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

... The following is from a Congressional Hearing.

{snip}

This will be plainly obvious to everyone participating or lurking in this thread so I'm specifically addressing this to you DOC.

Did you see what happened when you posted the Misty Newburry testimony? It was called into question and numerous people tried to investigate the allegations and showed that they were inaccurate at best. This is coming on the heels of all the other times accomodationist claims have been parroted by you and they have been demonstrated to be inaccurate or outright false.

Now, there's a concept that everyone in this thread seems to get except for you - if you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up. The proper response to questions about the veracity of Sekulow's testimony is not to ask why would he lie/fudge/engage in hyberbole. The proper response is to do like Nova Land did with the Rutherford Institute and actually contact the ACLJ asking them for evidence supporting Sekulow's claims.

Get it?

 

[kmortis]

This will be plainly obvious to everyone participating or lurking in this thread so I'm specifically addressing this to you DOC.

Did you see what happened when you posted the Misty Newburry testimony? It was called into question and numerous people tried to investigate the allegations and showed that they were inaccurate at best. This is coming on the heels of all the other times accomodationist claims have been parroted by you and they have been demonstrated to be inaccurate or outright false.

Now, there's a concept that everyone in this thread seems to get except for you - if you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up. The proper response to questions about the veracity of Sekulow's testimony is not to ask why would he lie/fudge/engage in hyberbole. The proper response is to do like Nova Land did with the Rutherford Institute and actually contact the ACLJ asking them for evidence supporting Sekulow's claims.

Get it?

US,
You're using too many big words, like "support" or "veracity". Please stick to the Kennedy Approved^tm word list, provided at the begining of this tread.

 

[DOC]

The newspaper clipping is listed as being from the St. Petersburg Times (Florida) for September 28, 1991. But it likely appeared in many other newspapers as well; it's one of a number of short items of religious news gathered from around the country for use in various newspapers' religion section.

Quote:
Praying high school students dispersed by police

An Illinois school board has apologized for an incident in which six high school students were dispersed by police and two students were temporarily detained for taking part in a prayer rally around the school flagpole.

The Sept. 11 incident at Massac County High School in Metropolis, Ill., was filmed on videotape by the grandmother of Misty Newberry, one of the two students taken into custody by police. The police locked the students in the back of a police cruiser while they conferred with Principal Sidney R. Sexton.

Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (CASE), which represented Newberry at a school board meeting Monday night, said a police officer had warned the two detained students that if they attempted another such prayer gathering they would be arrested and charged. Sexton also called all the praying students into his office, where he lectured them about the dangers of riots and other demonstrations.

At its meeting, the local school board said it would adopt policies to insure that students are permitted to gather voluntarily for student-led prayer at the school.

"This is complete vindication for Misty Newberry and her fellow students," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for CASE in Washington. "We appreciate the board's forthright and clear admission of error. Now we plan to complete this task by turning our attention to the conduct of the Metropolis police in this matter."

Why is the above likely to have appeared in other papers? And who is the author of this article? I noticed that was left out.

And are you saying that a student who was handcuffed (in front of her schoolmates), put in the back of a locked police car (15 to 20 minutes) while the policeman was talking to a school official, and then driven around to the other side of the school was not arrested. If I would have done the same thing to Misty I could have been charged with kidnapping.

The first definition of the word "arrest' in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is to "seize (a person) by legal authority"

I for one believe she should have received more than the few thousand she received from the police.

 

[DOC]

How about a primary source other than congressional testimony from someone we have shown to be willing to cite inaccuracies and lies?

Originally Posted by DOC
What are the deliberate untruths made with the intent to deceive (lies) that Jay Seculow of the American Center for Law and Justice has made.

Nice try, we've already gone over this.

Nobody has demonstrated that Sekulow was willing to cite lies so your post contained a falsehood.

 

[Cleon]

Originally Posted
What are the deliberate untruths made with the intent to deceive (lies) that Jay Seculow of the American Center for Law and Justice has made.






Nobody has demonstrated that Sekulow was willing to cite lies so your post contained a falsehood.

Not correct. It was demonstrated rather conclusively that the claims Sekulow made about the case were incorrect. Further, Sekulow claimed to have been intimately involved in the case. Had he actually been as involved as he claimed, he would know that his description of the case was inaccurate.

So either he lied about the case, or he lied about his involvement. In this case it is a binary situation--one or the other.

 

[DOC]

Not correct. It was demonstrated rather conclusively that the claims Sekulow made about the case were incorrect. Further, Sekulow claimed to have been intimately involved in the case. Had he actually been as involved as he claimed, he would know that his description of the case was inaccurate.

So either he lied about the case, or he lied about his involvement. In this case it is a binary situation--one or the other.

Please be specific, where where was it demonstrated conclusively that the claims Sekulow made about the case were incorrect.

And be specific. Where was it shown that Sekulow was willing to cite lies, like fowlsound stated.

 

[Cleon]

And are you saying

Haven't we been through this, DOC? What did we say about putting words in other people's mouths?

that a student who was handcuffed (in front of her schoolmates), put in the back of a locked police car while the policeman was talking to a school official, and then driven around to the other side of the school was not arrested.

1) Whether she was in front of her schoolmates or not is irrelevant. That's a shameless attempt to put emotional weight on the subject.
2) So is the bit about a "locked police car." Since I was a little kid, it's been a key feature of police cars that the back doors are always locked from the inside.
3) Watch Cops, for heaven's sake, or even one of the Law & Order shows (they're much better). If a police officer perceives someone to be unruly or uncooperative, it's not uncommon for them to handcuff the person in question. When they do so, it's also not uncommon for them to put them in the police car (yes, with the sinister locked doors) while they talk to other witnesses.
4) Who gives a frack if they drove her to the other side of the school? I went to a pretty damn big high school, and it was still no more than a five-minute walk from one side of the building to the other.
5) No, none of this means she was "arrested." It means she was briefly detained. I believe the police are legally allowed to detain someone for 24 hours before they either have to arrest them (charge them with something) or let them go. No charges were involved here.

If I would have done the same thing to Misty I could have been charged with kidnapping.

You are not a police officer. Good thing, too--your lack of knowledge about law and legal practice would be rather frightening if you were a cop.

 

[Cleon]

Please be specific, where where was it demonstrated conclusively that the claims Sekulow made about the case were incorrect.

And be specific. Where was it shown that Sekulow was willing to cite lies.

Please read the posts. Nova Land went through a lot of trouble to research that information, and it is damn rude of you to ignore it because it's inconvenient.

 

[DOC]

Please read the posts. Nova Land went through a lot of trouble to research that information, and it is damn rude of you to ignore it because it's inconvenient.

I did read the posts. I asked you to be specific and you chose not to.

 

[Cleon]

I did read the posts.

Once again, a binary situation. Either you're lying about having read the posts, or you lied when you said "nobody has demonstrated that Sekulow was willing to cite lies."

You can't have it both ways.

I asked you to be specific and you chose not to.

No, I'm choosing not to play your game.

You're demanding specifics because you're trying to drag this out, hoping that there's some way you can wiggle out any support for even the possibility that you might be correct.

 

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by DOC
What are the deliberate untruths made with the intent to deceive (lies) that Jay Seculow of the American Center for Law and Justice has made.






Nobody has demonstrated that Sekulow was willing to cite lies so your post contained a falsehood.

You have either refused to read posts in this thread, or have simply decided to try to drag this out by playing dumb as to their contents. Either way, you are invited to reread all the posts on the subject in this thread. I'm certainly not going to spoon feed you.

 

[kmortis]

You have either refused to read posts in this thread, or have simply decided to try to drag this out by playing dumb as to their contents. Either way, you are invited to reread all the posts on the subject in this thread. I'm certainly not going to spoon feed you.

But fowl, isn't spoon feeding what you do with those who are mentally/physically incapable to feed themselves? Be kind. DOC has repeatedly shown that he's incapable of the simplest tasks, such as following the simplest conversation. Especially one that's written down and archived such as these.

 

[slingblade]

How did this get twisted so that we're having to prove Sekulow lied?

Doc's the one who's lying. I don't care about Sekulow--I want to know why Doc keeps lying.

Wait, I already know. He's a Fundy. Nuff said.

 

[Ducky]

We already showed Sekulow lied. DOC refuses to read those posts.

 

[slingblade]

Ah. It's a little confusing, what with all the various lying liars and the lies they tell.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The first definition of the word "arrest' in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is to "seize (a person) by legal authority"

That's what you get for using the dictionary. You should consult with a legal professional or someone familiar with law enforcement instead.

Speaking of which, have you gotten off your lazy ass and contacted the ACLJ about those cases claims Sekulow made yet? How about if you just get details on 1 per group in the breakdown he gave?

Can you actually do some work for yourself for a chance?

 

[Nova Land]

Why is the above likely to have appeared in other papers? And who is the author of this article? I noticed that was left out.

Quite a number of newspapers around the US have a special Religion section of the paper (generally Friday or Saturday, in the papers where I've seen this). These sections contain paid ads for local churches, local news briefs about local churches, calendars of events, etc., along with nationally nationally syndicated features. One of these syndicated features is a section consisting of news briefs from around the country. That's what the item in the St Petersburg paper is (which is why a Florida paper was carrying news items about something which happened in Illinois).

The items in the national news briefs section are compiled and provided to newspapers around the country by Religious News Service. I've provided the link to their site so that you can read up on their history if you like.

For nearly 70 years, Religion News Service^™ has been an authoritative source of news about religion, ethics, spirituality and moral issues. Based in Washington, D.C., RNS has a network of correspondents around the world, providing news and information on all faiths and religious movements to the nation's leading newspapers, news magazines, broadcast organizations and religious publications. RNS' first priority is to provide intelligent, objective coverage of all religions-Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Asian religions and private spirituality. RNS also provides commentary from a diverse array of all points of the political and theological spectrum.

On September 28 1991 there were 7 items in their news brief section. There is a heading on the document which says BYLINE: CHRINE LEHMANN, which I suspect is a computer mis-transcription of Christine Lehmann. (What the Rutherford Institute sent me is an electronic copy of what appeared in the paper that day, not a photocopy.)

In addition to the story about Misty Newberry, which I've already quoted in its entirety, here are the headlines and snippets from the other 6 items for that day.

"ACLU president warns of rocky road before court"

The Supreme Court "is literally turning back the clock on constitutional law and philosophy," particularly in the area of religious liberty, according to the president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Addressing the 44th national conference of Americans United for Separation of Church and State here Monday, Nadine Strossen declared that "we can no longer depend on the federal court system to protect our religious liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment."

"Ban on storefront churches renewed"

The Minneapolis City Council has renewed its ban on storefront churches without discussion.

The action was taken in late August but did not come to public attention until it was reported recently by the Twin Cities Christian, an evangelical-oriented newspaper.

The ban prevents religious institutions from renting property in commercial zones even if that property would otherwise remain vacant...

"Permit requirement for home worship dropped"

In response to a federal lawsuit filed by the Rutherford Institute, city officials in Murray, Utah, have rewritten a zoning ordinance that required special permits to hold "religious activities" in private homes.

The new ordinance, which has been approved by the city's Planning and Zoning Commission, requires conditional use permits only for "places or buildings used for religious activities" such as churches, synagogues, seminaries, chapels, temples and missions in residential zones.

"Christian Scientists cleared in boy's death"

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a Christian Science couple who relied on prayer rather than medicine to treat the woman's dying son cannot be charged in the boy's death.

In a 4-2 decision, the court upheld two lower court decisions that dismissed second-degree manslaughter indictments against the boy's mother, Kathleen McKown, and his stepfather, William McKown...

"Groups fights ban on team prayers"

Should members of a basketball team at a public high school be allowed to pray publicly?

For 20 years, the girls' basketball team at Duncanville High School in a Dallas suburb has knelt and recited the Lord's Prayer at the end of each game, win or lose.

Enter the American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed a suit in federal District Court in Dallas on behalf of an unidentified member of the team and her father, contending that the prayers violate the girl's First Amendment rights...

... The Rutherford Institute, which holds that there is a place for religion in public schools, has taken up the cause of the 17 other members of the team and their parents, who accuse the plaintiffs of denying them their rights.

Donovan Campbell, a lawyer for the Rutherford Institute, said, "If the ACLU is allowed to prevail, religious students at Duncanville High School will be relegated to the status of second-class citizens."

"Rejection of women chaplains called illegal"

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is illegally discriminating by refusing to consider hiring women as Roman Catholic chaplains for its hospitals, a federal judge ruled recently.

The ruling applies to women of all religious faiths that do not ordain women, not just to Catholics, according to Daniel Lynch, attorney for a Denver woman who sued the VA...

RNS looks like a reputable news source to me. Reading through the news items which they compiled, all the stories look to be competently written. I can see no obvious inaccuracies or glaring problems with any of the items.

Also please note that these items were provided to me by the Rutherford Institute from their files, in response to my request for any information they had about the Misty Newberry matter. If they had felt this was unreliable information, I believe they would have included a note to that effect.

If you would like a complete copy of the document to examine more closely, let me know and I would be happy to PM or e-mail it to you.

 

[Nova Land]

... And are you saying that a student who was handcuffed (in front of her schoolmates), put in the back of a locked police car (15 to 20 minutes) while the policeman was talking to a school official, and then driven around to the other side of the school was not arrested.

Yes, I am. And I speak from personal experience here. Being detained by the police is not the same as being arrested by the police.

In 1971 a friend of mine ("Joanie") was transferred, along with 65 other women prisoners, from the federal women's prison in Alderson W. Va. to a federal men's prison in Ashland Kentucky. Joanie's parents were elderly, and lived in Philadelphia; they were concerned about Joanie under these circumstances, but travelling to Kentucky to try to visit Joanie was not an option for them at that time. Therefore I and another of Joanie's friends ("Xenia") hitched out to Ashland to attempt to visit Joanie.

Xenia was not an officially authorized visitor for Joanie, but I was -- at least as regarded her approved visitor list at Alderson. I had been able to visit Joanie at Alderson shortly prior to her transfer to Ashland. Therefore we were hopeful that one or both of us would be allowed to visit her at Ashland.

For a variety of reasons not necessary to the telling of this story, the authorities at Ashland were not keen on permitting us to visit Joanie. Xenia and I jumped through a number of hoops in trying to straighten the matter out -- such as having a telegram sent from Joanie's parents authorizing us as their representatives and requesting the prison to permit us to visit Joanie in their place. After several days, we thought we had things worked out. The prison officials allowed us in the gates, and had us wait inside the prison. But instead of bringing Joanie to the visiting room and letting us visit with her, they had called the county police, who came out, dragged us to their police van, maced us, stuffed us in the van, and drove us out to the county line where they released us. We were not placed under arrest.

I can state with assurance that we were not placed under arrest for two reasons. One is that, the next day, we returned to the prison and tried again. Again they permitted us inside, called the county police, and had us dragged away. Again we were dragged, maced, stuffed in a police van, and driven away. This time, however, we were taken to jail and we were placed under arrest. The difference between the two experiences seemed clear to me at the time, and still seems clear. Being arrested is different than simply being temporarily detained.

But there's another reason, besides the obvious difference between the two experiences, that lets me state with confidence that the first experience did not involve being arrested. A couple of weeks earlier I had been released from federal prison, having served 27 months of a 3 year sentence. I was released after 27 with 9 months (25% of the sentence) in "good time". However, if one has more than 6 months of good time one is on the same conditions as if one is on parole or probation. One of those conditions is that being arrested is a violation of the release conditions, and the authorities who have arrested you must hold you for the federal authorities. The second time I was dragged away and maced, I was held in custody for the federal authorities to pick up; but the first time I was dragged away and maced, I was not.

If I had been arrested, they would have had been legally required to hold me for the feds; they did not hold me for the feds the first time; therefore that incident was not an arrest.

I am not a lawyer; but I think any good lawyer could tell you that there is a difference between being detained by the police and being arrested by the police. I think any good police officer could also tell you that there is a difference. If the ACLJ people are genuinely trying to inform you rather than misinform you, It's funny that they haven't clarified this difference for you.