Vote Gingrich and say Goodbye to Religious Freedom

[sync0s]

Seeking to steer the political conversation away from attacks on his past, Newt Gingrich in a conference call with reports today challenged the idea of "judicial supremacy" and talked of making the U.S. court system fairer by getting tougher on judges he called "anti-American." As Gingrich stressed Saturday, the issue (which he has raised in the past) includes a number of potential remedies. He drew widespread attention at Thursday's GOP debate for calling for abolishing courts, but now appears to be softening his rhetoric on the issue............

Gingrich said he recognized the issue's importance about a decade ago after a decision by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that "one nation under God" should be excluded from the Pledge of Allegiance under some circumstances. He also often cites U.S. District Judge Fred Biery of Texas, who in June issued a ruling in which he blocked prayer at a Texas high school, as an example of the need for greater judicial accountability. (The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned Biery's ruling.)
"I do think it's legitimate to consider impeaching [Biery], which I do think will be much easier and less controversial than to try to abolish his court," Gingrich said. "That requires that you have a really big majority in the House and Senate."

Hypocritical power abuser pointing fingers at people who make decisions that go against his personal beliefs. Religion run a muck.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57344694-503544/gingrich-wants-to-fight-judicial-supremacy/

 

[Charlie Ventura]

Hypocritical power abuser pointing fingers at people who make decisions that go against his personal beliefs. Religion run a muck.

By what stretch of the imagination does one conclude that the courts have a larger role to play in our governmental system than the executive and/or legislative branches? The courts do not have the final say on anything. If they did, then the entire country would be under the dictatorial rule of a nine-person oligarchy.

Now then of course, if one political faction, say those demented progressives for example, couldn't pass the tyrannical legislation they love so much, then of course they would be in favor of rule by the Black Robes. That's why the packing of the judiciary with progressive judges, and blocking constitutionalist judges is so important to them.

On the other hand, every liberty devotee should strive for equality between the three branches of government. This is the way the Founders set the system up.Verification can be had by reading the intent of the Founders in the Federalist Papers and other historical documents.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the courts to hold sway over the other two branches of government.

Just because our government monopolized school systems have, with the full cooperation and intent of the lying progressives, washed clean the brains of the past three generations, doesn't make judicial supremacy a fact.

When it comes to the judiciary ruling on the mention of God in schools, the judiciary is way out of it's league here. The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So, with that in mind, where does any judge get off trying to rule what can be said, or not said, regarding religion in the pubic square? Has congress made a law or prohibited the free exercise of a religious belief in the case in question? I'll leave it up to you to answer the question.

 

[NLXSK1]

in 2 cases he advocates that the government should not be legislating the church (which it isnt supposed to do anyway) and you call it religion run amok?

LOL!

 

[sync0s]

When it comes to the judiciary ruling on the mention of God in schools, the judiciary is way out of it's league here. The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So, with that in mind, where does any judge get off trying to rule what can be said, or not said, regarding religion in the pubic square? Has congress made a law or prohibited the free exercise of a religious belief in the case in question? I'll leave it up to you to answer the question.

He wants to impeach a judge who ruled that a public school can not hold school sponsored prayer at the graduation ceremony of 238. It was determined in a lawsuit against the school district because the school was believed to be constantly violating the laws against schools sponsored religion. Public funding means no sponsored religious talk. Separation between church and state <--- Yes, our founding fathers also set our country up with this as an intent as well.

Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and justices serve no fixed term &#8212; they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns.

We are worried about JUDGES abusing power? Are we kidding? Our President has a bill on his desk to throw citizens in military prison and we are worried about judges overturning our laws having too much power? Our government can violate the Constitution by illegal search and seizure and roving wiretaps and you have the nerve to tell me that the founding fathers would be upset with the power that the JUDICIAL branch holds??????

 

[Charlie Ventura]

He wants to impeach a judge who ruled that a public school can not hold school sponsored prayer at the graduation ceremony of 238. It was determined in a lawsuit against the school district because the school was believed to be constantly violating the laws against schools sponsored religion. Public funding means no sponsored religious talk. Separation between church and state <--- Yes, our founding fathers also set our country up with this as an intent as well.



We are worried about JUDGES abusing power? Are we kidding? Our President has a bill on his desk to throw citizens in military prison and we are worried about judges overturning our laws having too much power? Our government can violate the Constitution by illegal search and seizure and roving wiretaps and you have the nerve to tell me that the founding fathers would be upset with the power that the JUDICIAL branch holds??????

1. It is none of the judge's business if the word "God" is mentioned in a graduation ceremony. Where is the authority to cut off funding where "religious talk" takes place? Certainly not in the Constitution. The Constitution says that congress shall make no laws respecting religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof. So, your judge is out to lunch. He's a progressive radical that is trying to foist his own beliefs (progressive religious beliefs at that) upon the citizenry without any authorization at all. He SHOULD be impeached just as any totalitarian should be impeached.

2. The illegal search issue and the judge issue are two different subjects, and what you are trying to do by raising the illegal search issue is to deflect from the original argument. Well, it won't work my friend. However, I will give you this ... there is no room in a free society for the military to be able to arrest ANY U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. The politicians who drew up this legislation, and the ONE politician that signed it into law, should all be impeached for treason. With that said, in the future when we are talking about apples, try to avoid the impulse to throw in oranges, OK?

 

[sync0s]

1. It is none of the judge's business if the word "God" is mentioned in a graduation ceremony. Where is the authority to cut off funding where "religious talk" takes place? Certainly not in the Constitution. The Constitution says that congress shall make no laws respecting religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof. So, your judge is out to lunch. He's a progressive radical that is trying to foist his own beliefs (progressive religious beliefs at that) upon the citizenry without any authorization at all. He SHOULD be impeached just as any totalitarian should be impeached.

2. The illegal search issue and the judge issue are two different subjects, and what you are trying to do by raising the illegal search issue is to deflect from the original argument. Well, it won't work my friend. However, I will give you this ... there is no room in a free society for the military to be able to arrest ANY U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. The politicians who drew up this legislation, and the ONE politician that signed it into law, should all be impeached for treason. With that said, in the future when we are talking about apples, try to avoid the impulse to throw in oranges, OK?

So you support a public school holding administration sponsored religious agenda?

You're right. The Constitution cannot lay any laws for/against religion against its people, BUT they can (And many of the founders most notably Benjamin Franklin and the author of the Constitution James Madison fought for this) pass legislation that prevents the government from violating seperation between church and state.

Finally, your apples and oranges argument only shows your ignorance on the issue. They are not any different when we are talking about how a branch of the government has too much power, or did you forget that is what we are talking about here? The next time you attempt to use a Cain argument on me, I'll be forced to Mitt Romney you.

 

[Brick Top]

Vote Gingrich and say Goodbye to Religious Freedom

It is clear that you are one of those who define religious freedom as government mandated/legislated/enforced freedom from religion if someone happens to not be a believer, especially as in not a Christian. Other religions are tolerated more.

Freedom of religion does not mean it is the government's job to create a buffer between all things religious and people in anything and everything that is in any way government connected, as in right down to funded or partially funded.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Freedom of religion is the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to choose to partake in religious practices or to abstain from them without government intervention.

Notice that practicing religion is also included with abstaining from religion and both should not have any government intervention?

That is not what we now have. We have government intervention that prohibits any type of religious practice or symbolism in certain circumstances. We have government intervention creating the freedom from religion for those who choose to not believe, at least not in Christianity.

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. (Justice Douglas in Zorach v Clauson)

That seems to no longer be the case.

 

[Cali chronic]

Newts ww3 quotes: Wall Street Journal (for what that is worth) Although a quote is a quote

First, Congress should declare that we are in World War III, says Gingrich. This in turn will require a "dramatically larger budget." And what should be done with this dramatically larger budget? According to Gingrich, the U.S. military should invade Lebanon with the purpose of "disarming Hezbollah." This would effectively commence another war with Syria, says Gingrich, as it would be "the first direct defeat of Syria," which supposedly pulls the strings of Hezbollah. It would also be an assault on Iran, says the former House speaker, and would therefore be an act of war against that country as well.

Next, full-scale warfare should be waged against North Korea, Iran and Syria with the objective of "replacing the repressive dictatorships" in those countries. All of this would somehow serve in "restoring American prestige in the region," says Gingrich. Yes, murdering hundreds of thousands of Iranians, Syrians, and Lebanese, and destroying their cities and their infrastructure of civilization, which is what war does, would surely lead the people of those countries to think of Americans as "prestigious."

Gingrich seems vaguely aware that war always causes an explosion of governmental powers and a corresponding destruction of liberty and prosperity at home. Thus, he makes the case for magically transforming the Pentagon into a paragon of efficiency. He sounds a lot like an early twentieth-century communist preaching the praises of "scientific socialism." "Clear metrics of achievement" should be implemented, as though the usual politics would not prohibit such a thing, as it has for hundreds of years in all societies. The Pentagon must be made more "business-like," an oxymoron if ever there was one.

The domestic police state should also be expanded exponentially, said Gingrich, as long as the Fatherland Security Bureaucracy is also run in a super-efficient manner, with "metrics-based performance" measurements. He does have his business school lingo down cold.

 

[Luger187]

in 2 cases he advocates that the government should not be legislating the church (which it isnt supposed to do anyway) and you call it religion run amok?

LOL!

when did he legislate the church? hes talkin about public schools

1. It is none of the judge's business if the word "God" is mentioned in a graduation ceremony. Where is the authority to cut off funding where "religious talk" takes place? Certainly not in the Constitution. The Constitution says that congress shall make no laws respecting religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof. So, your judge is out to lunch. He's a progressive radical that is trying to foist his own beliefs (progressive religious beliefs at that) upon the citizenry without any authorization at all. He SHOULD be impeached just as any totalitarian should be impeached.

are you saying it is okay for a public school to force atheists and people of other religions to have a christian prayer? what if there was a public school that wanted to do a muslim prayer? what if your kid was forced to do it? would you be okay with that? what is the difference?

2. The illegal search issue and the judge issue are two different subjects, and what you are trying to do by raising the illegal search issue is to deflect from the original argument. Well, it won't work my friend. However, I will give you this ... there is no room in a free society for the military to be able to arrest ANY U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. The politicians who drew up this legislation, and the ONE politician that signed it into law, should all be impeached for treason. With that said, in the future when we are talking about apples, try to avoid the impulse to throw in oranges, OK?

i agree, that is very treasonous indeed

 

[Carne Seca]

The biggest failing of Newt Gingrich.... is Newt Gingrich. The longer he stays in the spotlight the more he is going to fuck up. He can't help it. He has to open his mouth and expound the greatness of Newt Gingrich. Why do you think his campaign staff abandoned him en masse? I truly hope he makes the nomination. It will be a slaughter.

 

[Charlie Ventura]

when did he legislate the church? hes talkin about public schools



[/COLOR]are you saying it is okay for a public school to force atheists and people of other religions to have a christian prayer? what if there was a public school that wanted to do a muslim prayer? what if your kid was forced to do it? would you be okay with that? what is the difference?

No, I'm saying that we cannot use the congress to make laws, nor the president to enforce laws against prayer of any denomination in the public square. That would include public schools. Your key word is "force." Government bureaucrats, and that would include school boards, principles and teachers should have no say in the issue at all. They should just stay out of it and let the citizens decide. What exactly is so offensive in seeing a few members of a high school football team kneel in prayer prior to the start of a game? I attend a lot of high school games. We have two religious schools, one Catholic and one Christian in our league. The games always start with a prayer which is said over the intercom system. I find it refreshing ... and I have yet to hear a complaint from any fan in the bleachers about it.

 

[sync0s]

No, I'm saying that we cannot use the congress to make laws, nor the president to enforce laws against prayer of any denomination in the public square. That would include public schools. Your key word is "force." Government bureaucrats, and that would include school boards, principles and teachers should have no say in the issue at all. They should just stay out of it and let the citizens decide. What exactly is so offensive in seeing a few members of a high school football team kneel in prayer prior to the start of a game? I attend a lot of high school games. We have two religious schools, one Catholic and one Christian in our league. The games always start with a prayer which is said over the intercom system. I find it refreshing ... and I have yet to hear a complaint from any fan in the bleachers about it.

How can you say no and than continue to imply yes? You don't understand, this isn't the court telling the school they can't have some Christian's Anon group or some shit. This was a school trying to hold a religiously charged graduation ceremony. They were attempting to force graduation Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and much more participate in a public school sponsored Christian ceremony.

Obviously, you are biased. You are making it apparent that you are Christian. Christians have a hard time realizing how much people of other religions (or absence there of) tolerate their bullshit. Christians always have to whine to the worlds end when someone of another belief actually stands up for their selves.

 

[Charlie Ventura]

How can you say no and than continue to imply yes? You don't understand, this isn't the court telling the school they can't have some Christian's Anon group or some shit. This was a school trying to hold a religiously charged graduation ceremony. They were attempting to force graduation Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and much more participate in a public school sponsored Christian ceremony.

Obviously, you are biased. You are making it apparent that you are Christian. Christians have a hard time realizing how much people of other religions (or absence there of) tolerate their bullshit. Christians always have to whine to the worlds end when someone of another belief actually stands up for their selves.

I think it is you who are confused. Is the mention of "God" a word that is offensive to the religions of Muslims, Jews and Buddhists?

Where was the school "forcing" anyone to do anything? And for the few non-believers out there who are raising all the fuss .... let them place their fingers into their ears for the few seconds that God is being mentioned. I mean, God forbid that their precious little egos would be damaged by a slight so serious as that created by the mere mention of God.

By the way, I would be prone to agree with you if the school actually forced students to come to the altar of Jesus Christ to ask for forgiveness and to be absolved of their sins. But, I don't recall any reference to Jesus at all, therefore, you alluding to Christians or the Christian faith is bogus on its face.

 

[sync0s]

I think it is you who are confused. Is the mention of "God" a word that is offensive to the religions of Muslims, Jews and Buddhists?

Where was the school "forcing" anyone to do anything? And for the few non-believers out there who are raising all the fuss .... let them place their fingers into their ears for the few seconds that God is being mentioned. I mean, God forbid that their precious little egos would be damaged by a slight so serious as that created by the mere mention of God.

By the way, I would be prone to agree with you if the school actually forced students to come to the altar of Jesus Christ to ask for forgiveness and to be absolved of their sins. But, I don't recall any reference to Jesus at all, therefore, you alluding to Christians or the Christian faith is bogus on its face.

The judge did grant students permission to make the sign of the cross, wear religious garb or kneel to face Mecca. But that&#8217;s not good enough for some students at the high school.

But the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, hailed the judge&#8217;s decision.

&#8220;This is a high school graduation,&#8221; he told Fox News Radio. &#8220;It is not a church service.&#8221;


Lynn was critical of the attorney general&#8217;s allegation that the ruling was an attempt to purge Christianity from the public square.
&#8220;Any attorney general worth his salt would know that&#8217;s the issue and that this is not about promoting atheism,&#8221; he said. &#8220;That&#8217;s ludicrous

His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, &#8220;in [a deity&#8217;s name] we pray.&#8221;

^^ Therefore including "Jesus."

 

[Charlie Ventura]

^^ Therefore including "Jesus."

• His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”​

  ​

Therefore, Jesus was excluded.

 

[Luger187]

No, I'm saying that we cannot use the congress to make laws, nor the president to enforce laws against prayer of any denomination in the public square.

duh... who is saying they are doing that? not allowing prayer in schools means not allowing any sponsored(by the gov) prayer event, no matter what denomination it is. that would be the state sponsoring and endorsing one religion over another. the individuals are still free to pray

That would include public schools. Your key word is "force." Government bureaucrats, and that would include school boards, principles and teachers should have no say in the issue at all.

the people that work for or at a school should not be holding events(at the school) that are endorsing one religion over another, such as a prayer event. otherwise idiot christians would start holding prayer events in public schools.

They should just stay out of it and let the citizens decide.

majority does not rule here. what about the muslim or atheist students in schools that are forced to listen to christian prayers? again, would you be okay if your kid was forced to listen to a muslim prayer regularly in a PUBLIC school? what is the difference? i see none

What exactly is so offensive in seeing a few members of a high school football team kneel in prayer prior to the start of a game?

if the individuals do it, there is nothing wrong with it, besides looking like fools.

I attend a lot of high school games. We have two religious schools, one Catholic and one Christian in our league. The games always start with a prayer which is said over the intercom system. I find it refreshing ... and I have yet to hear a complaint from any fan in the bleachers about it.

*edit: i just noticed you said religious schools. ill keep what i wrote here since it still shows my point. i thought you meant they were public schools. obviously there isnt a problem with prayer in a religious school. well, legally... there is plenty wrong with it though


this is where it goes too far imo. this is the state endorsing or sponsoring one religion over others. if the individual people want to pray, nothing is stopping them. but when the principal or whoever the school official is says the prayer over the intercom, they are basically saying that we are christian and if you arent, you dont belong. that is wrong to do in a public school environment, period.
what about the few muslims in the crowd? if there isnt any, what about the atheists? if there isnt any, what about the secret atheists that are too scared to come out because everyone and everything around them is religion, and they feel that if they came out they will be shunned by their peers? how can you tell these people apart from the 'real' christians in the crowd? after all, they are praying as well(faking it at least). maybe nobody is speaking out because they are afraid of the social consequences for doing so.

 

[Luger187]

I think it is you who are confused. Is the mention of "God" a word that is offensive to the religions of Muslims, Jews and Buddhists?

not that word itself, but when its in a christian context it could be. it is definitely offensive to an atheist like me when they proclaim god is real based on faith, and everyone else agrees. its a little awkward

Where was the school "forcing" anyone to do anything? And for the few non-believers out there who are raising all the fuss .... let them place their fingers into their ears for the few seconds that God is being mentioned. I mean, God forbid that their precious little egos would be damaged by a slight so serious as that created by the mere mention of God.

this seriously pisses me off. it is offensive to people that do not believe when their own public school is proclaiming over the intercom that god is great and we will win because god is on our side. just as it would be offensive if an atheist got up and said your god does not exist and has no power over the outcome of the game. it is a game of skill, not a game of prayer.

what about this?

And for the few christians out there who are raising all the fuss .... let them place their fingers into their ears for the few seconds that the Great Spaghetti Monster is being mentioned. I mean, Spaghetti Monster forbid that their precious little egos would be damaged by a slight so serious as that created by the mere mention of the Great Spaghetti Monster.

how does that sound? would you be comfortable with everyone around you bowing their head in prayer to such a ridiculous notion? would you be okay with the fact that it was a publicly funded school that did it? what is the different between what you said and what i said?

By the way, I would be prone to agree with you if the school actually forced students to come to the altar of Jesus Christ to ask for forgiveness and to be absolved of their sins. But, I don't recall any reference to Jesus at all, therefore, you alluding to Christians or the Christian faith is bogus on its face.

if that judge had not made the decision he did, they would have been saying jesus or referring to the christian god, no doubt. they didnt because he told them they cant

 

[Cali chronic]

Superstitious nonsense....I do not believe in superstition. My girl has been broken from years of saying bless you when I sneeze. I told her to say "13 or knights templer" or some other horse shit; when I sneeze. That is how sane people feel when we hear the babellings of, tossing a virgin in a volcano, or burning a witch. Nonsense and keep it to yourselves.
I think it is religion that causes ALL war and strife. It has slowed modern medicine down and now is rearing it's ugly head once again by attempting to destroy America.

People wearing head dresses, priest outfits, Krishna'a and the likes of, are as annoying as talking to a Tranny in drag and having to keep a straight face!

 

[Luger187]

Superstitious nonsense....I do not believe in superstition. My girl has been broken from years of saying bless you when I sneeze. I told her to say "13 or knights templer" or some other horse shit; when I sneeze. That is how sane people feel when we hear the babellings of, tossing a virgin in a volcano, or burning a witch. Nonsense and keep it to yourselves.
I think it is religion that causes ALL war and strife. It has slowed modern medicine down and now is rearing it's ugly head once again by attempting to destroy America.

People wearing head dresses, priest outfits, Krishna'a and the likes of, are as annoying as talking to a Tranny in drag and having to keep a straight face!

there are other means of war. economic, the wanting of anothers resources, political ideologies(two completely secular countries could war with eachother),etc. although religion does spark a lot of feuds among peoples

 

[Cali chronic]

Luger,

With all due respect, I think if one were to extrapolate the wars, it is always about Religion.
The other stuff you mention is nothing more then propaganda. Like the war on drugs. Christians and the likes of, have put it into a category; like they did booze. Then make claims of making people lazy or increased crime. Although it may makes some laziness, or someone may steal something to support their itch... The war started because of religious zealots.

This current Jew war, has to do with Muslims and Jews and their hate for one another, (real god like) But Oil prices are effected by it. Not because of the price of oil, but because of the war, is the price of oil tampered with. If that makes sense? No resources being taken, just do not want them using the same drinking fountains.
Or building cities where more will multiply. The spoils of war are gone because of the UN. We go over there and fight their war because of an old Allie treaty and get nothing. As a matter of fact we get a bill to rebuild what we break.

The Christians wiped out everyone on that side of the world in the name of Christ teachings. The Arabians came in and did the same in the name of Allah. You bet that there are people in our govt who think by starting WW3 will 'egg on' their Armageddon and fulfill their story book prophecy. Newt being one of them.
When in fact, it will be nothing but a man made war; with no sense at all.

Religion was created for a sub conscious Govt.- Some men would fight for their land, others would fight for their King, but they needed something to conjure the rest.
I am writing a movie about it, it should be a real controversial one at that.