When Gary told me he had found Jesus, I thought, Ya-hoo! We're rich! But it turned out to be something different.
crabgrass
That isn't the issue and if you didn't have a drug numbed mind you might even be able to understand it.
You have to say it first before you can expect me to understand it. I don't do drugs that allow me to read minds.
it's a dispute between two groups of churchgoers.....where do you get "there has been no cessation of hostility in the secularists' war against Christianity." from that?
where is the secular war in this dispute between two groups of churchgoers?
it's a dispute between two groups of churchgoers.....where do you get "there has been no cessation of hostility in the secularists' war against Christianity." from that?
The article was about the COURT forcing these people back together.
The article was about the COURT forcing these people back together.
the court settled a land dispute....you aren't saying that it was seculars who brought this to the court, are you? Don't you think that religious groups should have access to the courts in matters of land disputes with other religious groups? Sounds like it's you who are discriminating against the religious groups. They get access to the courts just like anyone else.
how does it have anything to do with your secular war?
the court settled a land dispute....you aren't saying that it was seculars who brought this to the court, are you? I don't think the court settled anything.Don't you think that religious groups should have access to the courts in matters of land disputes with other religious groups? Again you deliberately ignored what I wrote or you are just to dense to understand it.
The article was about the COURT forcing these people back together. and if the court had ruled in favor of one group or the other? You just don't get it. You are hopeless.
I'm asking...what does this all have to do with your "secular war"
where is the "secular"?
I've asked this several times and my ability to understand your response to it has nothing to do with my ability to understand and everything to do with your inablitiy to answer the question.
This is the issue: Can a judge force a church to reinstate parishioners its leaders have expelled?
The Constitution says that Congress can make no law respecting the establishement of religion, or pohibiting the free excercise thereof. The courts have interpreted this to mean that states, cities school boards and all intruments of government cannot involve itself in relgious matters. It also should apply to the courts. Who the church allows in and kicks out is none of the governments business whether it be the feds, the state the city or the courts.
I think if the court had ruled in favor of the more conservative wing of the church that we'd never have heard about this, because David Limbaugh wouldn't have written about it.
Pass me one o' them gored-ox sandwiches, would you?
I'm asking...what does this all have to do with your "secular war" I answered you. You just didn't understand. The judges are putting themselves into the equation. they need to stay out. Isn't the speration of church and state one of your mantras? Well the court, an arm of the government, is putting its nose in this religious matter.
I've asked this several times and my ability to understand your response to it has nothing to do with my ability to understand and everything to do with your inablitiy to answer the question. No it due to is your utter lack of reason.
I think if the court had ruled in favor of the more conservative wing of the church that we'd never have heard about this, because David Limbaugh wouldn't have written about it.
It is obvious that you are a hypocrite or you would be against the court's ruling reinstating the memeberships.
Isn't the speration of church and state one of your mantras?
And isn't it the mantra of those that you tend to side with, jethro, that there is no such thing as the separation of church and state? You can't have it both ways, laddie.
Certain religions call for animal sacrifice and a few for human sacrifice, but those practices have been outlawed, and upheld by the Supreme Court on the grounds that society's interest outweighs the "free exercise" clause. The use of sacramental drugs such as peyote is also illegal, as is the snake-handling and poison-drinking of certain Christian sects. I don't hear David Limbaugh making any noise about those "secular oppressions."
Isn't the speration of church and state one of your mantras? And isn't it the mantra of those that you tend to side with, jethro, that there is no such thing as the separation of church and state? There is the first amendment and it applies.You can't have it both ways, laddie. No it is hypocrites like you that want seperation of church and state except when it doesn't get the result that you want. You people disgust me.
It isn't the court's business who is and is not a member of any church.
so, you don't think that members of churches should have access to the courts?
If you weren't such an idiot you would know that was not what I said. The remedy that was applied by the judge to the problem was unconstituional. It was proabably applied becuase there was nothing else that he could have done becuase there probably was not a property issue.
the court didn't force anyone to use the court to solve their problem. Well yes the members that got kicked out forced the church into court. Damn you are dumb.
it is hypocrites like you that want seperation of church and state except when it doesn't get the result that you want.
It is hypocrites like you who want religioncertain Christian churches to have their beliefs enshrined in civil law, but when a court makes a ruling in a property-rights suit you're screaming "separation of church and state" louder than the ACLU.
To be consistent, you should be lobbying for the right of Mormons to have plural marriages, for the repeal of laws against "tests of faith" like handling serpents or drinking poison, for the repeal of laws banning animal and human sacrifice, the decriminalization of peyote for the followers of Hopi, and the legalization of honor killings for strict Muslims.
To be consistent, you should be lobbying for the right of Mormons to have plural marriages, for the repeal of laws against "tests of faith" like handling serpents or drinking poison, for the repeal of laws banning animal and human sacrifice, the decriminalization of peyote for the followers of Hopi, and the legalization of honor killings for strict Muslims.
and pot for the Coptics.
and no "blue" laws
and since you equate "morality" strictly as based in Religion, no laws based on morality at all.
Well yes the members that got kicked out forced the church into court.
so, it was church members that did the forcing.
They got the COURT to force the church to take them back in.
still looking for any "secular war" evidence.
One of Limbaugh's points was that people like you don't care if there is a violation of seperation of church and state if a the rights of the church are trampled on. Get it now?
come back when you're certain that's why it was applied. No. The court needs to justify why id did what it did. There is nothing in the articles that indicates that there was any justification.and don't tell me you are, because you yourself admitted that there's nothing written anywhere on the matter, save what the papers have printed. Telling you anything is like talking to a brick wall.
Damn you are dumb. Nice talk, Defender Of The Faith.
I didn't say that I qualify to be saved. I simply take on the likes of you that are bent on denigrating it.
It is hypocrites like you who want religion certain Christian churches to have their beliefs enshrined in civil law, but when a court makes a ruling in a property-rights suit you're screaming "separation of church and state" louder than the ACLU. There is no evidence there was any property rights at issue. I am simply saying that if bigots like you are going to champion separation of church and state then you need to apply it consistently. But you don't give a damn about fairness or justice. You care only about what it is you want and damn everybody and everything else.
To be consistent, you should be lobbying for the right of Mormons to have plural marriages, for the repeal of laws against "tests of faith" like handling serpents or drinking poison, for the repeal of laws banning animal and human sacrifice, the decriminalization of peyote for the followers of Hopi, and the legalization of honor killings for strict Muslims. I would lobby for no such thing. I only want the U.S. Constitution applied as it is written. I have no problems with states regulating these matters within the scope of their own constitutions as the states are not Congress. But of course you'll disregard the issue of state versu federal power. But as long as liberals are going to warp the Constitution then it should be applied to all the same. Something you don't want.
They got the COURT to force the church to take them back in.
So, non-secular people are trying to use the courts.
are you against non-secular people having access to the courts?
One of Limbaugh's points was that people like you don't care if there is a violation of seperation of church and state if a the rights of the church are trampled on. Get it now?
Are you saying that the court should have refused to hear the case?
The court needs to justify why id did what it did. There is nothing in the articles that indicates that there was any justification.
and what do you think the courts should do when they are presented a case that involves churchgoers against other churchgoers?
it is hypocrites like you that want seperation of church and state except when it doesn't get the result that you want.
I want separation of chruch and state, yes.
Then you don't want the courts determining who is and is not a memeber of any church.
but how was forcing two groups of churchgoers to share a property a result that I give a damn about one way or the other, much less what I want? That was not the ruling of the court. The court ruled that the the church must keep them as memebers. There was no ruling on division of any property because it was a red herring to confuse fools like you.
as best I can tell, you feel that the court shouldn't have agreed to hear the case at all. Is this what you think? Based on the the alleged wrong and the remedy that was apparently sought that is correct. It does not appear that there was any request for any division of property. If there was a claim for property the issues of ownership and division would be legitimate questions for the court to address.
and since you equate "morality" strictly as based in Religion, no laws based on morality at all. That isn't my argument. My argument is the FEDS need to stay out of those matters.
You care only about what it is you want and damn everybody and everything else
I could care less about what one churchgoer wants from another churchgoer.
I only want the U.S. Constitution applied as it is written. I have no problems with states regulating these matters within the scope of their own constitutions as the states are not Congress.
So, non-secular people are trying to use the courts.
are you against non-secular people having access to the courts?
No. where do you come up with such nonsense? Is there some pill that you take?
One of Limbaugh's points was that people like you don't care if there is a violation of separation of church and state if a the rights of the church are trampled on. Get it now?
Are you saying that the court should have refused to hear the case?
Possibly. Depending on what was alleged in the complaint and the remedy that was being sought. It appears that the complaint alleges only that they were kicked out of the church and wanted back in. If that is correct then the case should have been kicked out.
and what do you think the courts should do when they are presented a case that involves churchgoers against other churchgoers? That depends on what the issue is. Here the sole issue appears to have been membership and the Court under the the current status of the law should not have ruled on that matter.
No. where do you come up with such nonsense? Is there some pill that you take?
so, if you aren't against the churchgoers accessing the court to resolve a dispute over the use of the church, what's your beef?
It appears that the complaint alleges only that they were kicked out of the church and wanted back in. If that is correct then the case should have been kicked out.
well, if they contributed to the building of the building, why don't they have a right to use the building?
Possibly. Depending
well, glad to see you are so sure of what you are accuing others of.
I only want the U.S. Constitution applied as it is written. I have no problems with states regulating these matters within the scope of their own constitutions as the states are not Congress.
then what are you bitching about?
It was a State court that made the ruling.
But under the federal law as it is understood today that ruling is unconstitutional. If it is going to prohibit the states and the cities and the schools from involving themselves in religion then the courts must also be prohibited. The courts are government. The point is the double standard of the left.
Then you don't want the courts determining who is and is not a memeber of any church.
absolutely not...no.
Then you should condemn the court's ruling.
it sounds like the court treated it like it was simply a question of who could use the building. A congregation isn't a building.
Then you need to reread the articles. the court forced the church to take them back as memebers.
No. where do you come up with such nonsense? Is there some pill that you take?
so, if you aren't against the churchgoers accessing the court to resolve a dispute over the use of the church, what's your beef?
It appears that the complaint alleges only that they were kicked out of the church and wanted back in. If that is correct then the case should have been kicked out.
well, if they contributed to the building of the building, why don't they have a right to use the building?
Possibly. Depending...That depends on what the issue is
well, glad to see you are so sure of what you are accusing others of.
It sounds to me that the court treated it like a simple property rights case. Where do you get that the one group has to include the other group in their group? I only see that they have to allow them to use the building.
so, if you aren't against the churchgoers accessing the court to resolve a dispute over the use of the church, what's your beef?
The particular issue which in this case was church membership and the remedy which was the court forcing the church to take them back as members.
It appears that the complaint alleges only that they were kicked out of the church and wanted back in. If that is correct then the case should have been kicked out.
well, if they contributed to the building of the building, why don't they have a right to use the building?That is not what any of the articles state. But if they did give gifts then they were gifts. What the article states is that the court took some statute regarding corporations which states something about having a property right in the corporation simply by being a member. If it were truly a property rights case then the property should have been divided. The answer is not requiring the church to accept members it has rejected.
Possibly. Depending
well, glad to see you are so sure of what you are accusing others of.
I know what the issue we were discussing was. Even if the facts are not exactly as they appear to be, the facts as set out and the position pieter has taken bears out Limbaugh's point.
What the article states is that the court took some statute regarding corporations which states something about having a property right in the corporation simply by being a member.
so, if they had legal contracts and they other party did not honor them, should they have a legal redress via the courts or does it being a court document precoude this?
if one member is harmed by another, can the State have no say in it.
it's a complicated situation.
but again, why do you think it's okay for some things (snake handling, peyote...etc) to be decided by the State and not this?
so, if I want to screw my business partner over I can default on our contract and just claim it's a religious matter...cool.
My point has been that the remedy of the court was unconstitutional.
Do you think that a Church has the right to harm it's members as long as it's within the context of the Church?
This could be handled by the states. The point is the feds have usurped this area but extreme left wingers like pieter don't want to apply the federal law fairly.
again, the case in consideration was a State court, not Federal.
If it is about membership then yes.
I agree...that a Church is exclusionary is strange, but it's their business. But can they harm another church member without fear of the State becoming involved?
For the record, I did not file the lawsuit and to my knowledge have never set foot in Fresno.
I have no problems with states regulating these matters within the scope of their own constitutions as the states are not Congress.
This would seem to indicate that you feel that the states have a right to get involved in church matters, which I thought was what you were complaining about. If the states are not bound by the establishment clause, then neither are they bound by the "free exercise" clause. Caution -- slippery slope ahead.
My argument is the FEDS need to stay out of those matters.
I thought your argument was with a state court meddling in church affairs. Consistency, jethro, coinsistency.
It appears . . . it appears . . . it appears . . . it appears
So why not find a more definitive article about what the issues really were, and get back to us. Better yet, why not ask both attorneys for briefs?
jethro, are you seriously implying that I am attacking Christianity because I point out the illogic of your arguments? You are not Christianity and you are not typical of the Christians I know and in some cases love.
The article you linked from the Fresno paper describes the basics of the case and the outlines of the court's decision. It sounds to me like a property-interest case, as the church members owned the building and perhaps the land, and when the dissenters were tossed out, they were deprived of property and sued for redress. Nowhere there do I see a secular attack on Christianity. If that makes me an enemy of Christianity in your eyes, I'd say you were a bit paranoid.
No. The court needs to justify why id did what it did. There is nothing in the articles that indicates that there was any justification.
and if the articles are all you've read, how do you know the court didn't justify it? i'd suggest you go do a little more research before casting such aspersions.
I have no problems with states regulating these matters within the scope of their own constitutions as the states are not Congress.
This would seem to indicate that you feel that the states have a right to get involved in church matters, which I thought was what you were complaining about.As usual you didn't understand.If the states are not bound by the establishment clause, then neither are they bound by the "free exercise" clause. Caution -- slippery slope ahead. The 1st amendment applies only to CONGRESS. Read it is says Congress shall make no law. The intent of those that drafted the constitution was to leave religious matters to the states and the citizens of those states.
My argument is the FEDS need to stay out of those matters.
I thought your argument was with a state court meddling in church affairs. Consistency, jethro, consistency.
I am sorry that you are to slow to understand. Let me spell it out for the intellectually challenged. The federal law is that states, cities and schools can't promote or hinder religion. This should apply to the courts to be consistent. But liberals such as yourself don't care about consistency. You just want what you want. My problem is that if the federal law is to apply here it needs to be applied consistently. Furthermore, it is people like you that should demand it be applied consistently. But, of course, people like you won't.
jethro, are you seriously implying that I am attacking Christianity because I point out the illogic of your arguments? If you think my arguments are illogical it shows how ignorant you are.
The article you linked from the Fresno paper describes the basics of the case and the outlines of the court's decision. It sounds to me like a property-interest case, as the church members owned the building and perhaps the land, and when the dissenters were tossed out, they were deprived of property and sued for redress. You are reading things into it that are not there. If that were the case the remedy is not to force those members back in but to divide the property. My guess there was no property issues at all. The court just referenced the statute that implies an amorphous property interest in the organization without any specifc interest in any particular property.Nowhere there do I see a secular attack on Christianity. If that makes me an enemy of Christianity in your eyes, I'd say you were a bit paranoid. You are proving Limbaugh's point right here.
and if the articles are all you've read, how do you know the court didn't justify it? i'd suggest you go do a little more research before casting such aspersions.
Based on the parementers of the diuscussion everything is well in order. In any event I am happy to cast aspersions on certain folks. Next.
You have to say it first before you can expect me to understand it. I don't do drugs that allow me to read minds.
it's a dispute between two groups of churchgoers.....where do you get "there has been no cessation of hostility in the secularists' war against Christianity." from that?
where is the secular war in this dispute between two groups of churchgoers?
that doesn't mean you know a damn thing about it.
you have that backwards.
it's a dispute between two groups of churchgoers.....where do you get "there has been no cessation of hostility in the secularists' war against Christianity." from that?
The article was about the COURT forcing these people back together.
the court settled a land dispute....you aren't saying that it was seculars who brought this to the court, are you? Don't you think that religious groups should have access to the courts in matters of land disputes with other religious groups? Sounds like it's you who are discriminating against the religious groups. They get access to the courts just like anyone else.
how does it have anything to do with your secular war?
and if the court had ruled in favor of one group or the other?
religious discrimination.
damned if you do and damned if you don't.
the court settled a land dispute....you aren't saying that it was seculars who brought this to the court, are you? I don't think the court settled anything.Don't you think that religious groups should have access to the courts in matters of land disputes with other religious groups? Again you deliberately ignored what I wrote or you are just to dense to understand it.
The article was about the COURT forcing these people back together. and if the court had ruled in favor of one group or the other? You just don't get it. You are hopeless.
I'm asking...what does this all have to do with your "secular war"
where is the "secular"?
I've asked this several times and my ability to understand your response to it has nothing to do with my ability to understand and everything to do with your inablitiy to answer the question.
I can't "get" what you won't say.
This is the issue: Can a judge force a church to reinstate parishioners its leaders have expelled?
The Constitution says that Congress can make no law respecting the establishement of religion, or pohibiting the free excercise thereof. The courts have interpreted this to mean that states, cities school boards and all intruments of government cannot involve itself in relgious matters. It also should apply to the courts. Who the church allows in and kicks out is none of the governments business whether it be the feds, the state the city or the courts.
I think if the court had ruled in favor of the more conservative wing of the church that we'd never have heard about this, because David Limbaugh wouldn't have written about it.
Pass me one o' them gored-ox sandwiches, would you?
did the court reinstate them to the parish or simply rule that they have a rights in regards to the property?
I'm asking...what does this all have to do with your "secular war" I answered you. You just didn't understand. The judges are putting themselves into the equation. they need to stay out. Isn't the speration of church and state one of your mantras? Well the court, an arm of the government, is putting its nose in this religious matter.
I've asked this several times and my ability to understand your response to it has nothing to do with my ability to understand and everything to do with your inablitiy to answer the question. No it due to is your utter lack of reason.
did the court reinstate them to the parish or simply rule that they have a rights in regards to the property?
according to what it the articles said the court reinstated them because of some amorphous property right.
lmao @ jethro saying someone else has an utter lack of reason
um...you mean that the courts actually went to the church and told them what to do?
are you SURE that it wasn't the other way around.
no one forced the church to take it to the court, did they?
I think if the court had ruled in favor of the more conservative wing of the church that we'd never have heard about this, because David Limbaugh wouldn't have written about it.
It is obvious that you are a hypocrite or you would be against the court's ruling reinstating the memeberships.
um...you mean that the courts actually went to the church and told them what to do? No dumb**** the court told them what to do from the courthouse.
no one forced the church to take it to the court, did they It isn't the court's business who is and is not a member of any church.
And isn't it the mantra of those that you tend to side with, jethro, that there is no such thing as the separation of church and state? You can't have it both ways, laddie.
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/083003.htm
The myth of church-state separationAugust 30, 2003
Certain religions call for animal sacrifice and a few for human sacrifice, but those practices have been outlawed, and upheld by the Supreme Court on the grounds that society's interest outweighs the "free exercise" clause. The use of sacramental drugs such as peyote is also illegal, as is the snake-handling and poison-drinking of certain Christian sects. I don't hear David Limbaugh making any noise about those "secular oppressions."
so, the court forced them to go to the courthouse?
so, you don't think that members of churches should have access to the courts?
the court didn't force anyone to use the court to solve their problem.
Isn't the speration of church and state one of your mantras? And isn't it the mantra of those that you tend to side with, jethro, that there is no such thing as the separation of church and state? There is the first amendment and it applies.You can't have it both ways, laddie. No it is hypocrites like you that want seperation of church and state except when it doesn't get the result that you want. You people disgust me.
It isn't the court's business who is and is not a member of any church.
so, you don't think that members of churches should have access to the courts?
If you weren't such an idiot you would know that was not what I said. The remedy that was applied by the judge to the problem was unconstituional. It was proabably applied becuase there was nothing else that he could have done becuase there probably was not a property issue.
the court didn't force anyone to use the court to solve their problem. Well yes the members that got kicked out forced the church into court. Damn you are dumb.
so, it was church members that did the forcing.
still looking for any "secular war" evidence.
proabablyapplied becuase there was nothing else that he could have done becuase there probably
Nice talk, Defender Of The Faith.
It is hypocrites like you who want
religioncertain Christian churches to have their beliefs enshrined in civil law, but when a court makes a ruling in a property-rights suit you're screaming "separation of church and state" louder than the ACLU.To be consistent, you should be lobbying for the right of Mormons to have plural marriages, for the repeal of laws against "tests of faith" like handling serpents or drinking poison, for the repeal of laws banning animal and human sacrifice, the decriminalization of peyote for the followers of Hopi, and the legalization of honor killings for strict Muslims.
I want separation of chruch and state, yes.
but how was forcing two groups of churchgoers to share a paroperty a result that I give a damn about one way or the other, much less what I want?
as best I can tell, you feel that the court shouldn't have agreed to hear the case at all. Is this what you think?
and pot for the Coptics.
and no "blue" laws
and since you equate "morality" strictly as based in Religion, no laws based on morality at all.
That'swhat I couldn't get to mesh....something seemed very "fundamentally" off track ;)
Well yes the members that got kicked out forced the church into court.
so, it was church members that did the forcing.
They got the COURT to force the church to take them back in.
still looking for any "secular war" evidence.
One of Limbaugh's points was that people like you don't care if there is a violation of seperation of church and state if a the rights of the church are trampled on. Get it now?
come back when you're certain that's why it was applied. No. The court needs to justify why id did what it did. There is nothing in the articles that indicates that there was any justification.and don't tell me you are, because you yourself admitted that there's nothing written anywhere on the matter, save what the papers have printed. Telling you anything is like talking to a brick wall.
No dumb****
Damn you are dumb.
Nice talk, Defender Of The Faith.
I didn't say that I qualify to be saved. I simply take on the likes of you that are bent on denigrating it.
It is hypocrites like you who want religion certain Christian churches to have their beliefs enshrined in civil law, but when a court makes a ruling in a property-rights suit you're screaming "separation of church and state" louder than the ACLU. There is no evidence there was any property rights at issue. I am simply saying that if bigots like you are going to champion separation of church and state then you need to apply it consistently. But you don't give a damn about fairness or justice. You care only about what it is you want and damn everybody and everything else.
To be consistent, you should be lobbying for the right of Mormons to have plural marriages, for the repeal of laws against "tests of faith" like handling serpents or drinking poison, for the repeal of laws banning animal and human sacrifice, the decriminalization of peyote for the followers of Hopi, and the legalization of honor killings for strict Muslims. I would lobby for no such thing. I only want the U.S. Constitution applied as it is written. I have no problems with states regulating these matters within the scope of their own constitutions as the states are not Congress. But of course you'll disregard the issue of state versu federal power. But as long as liberals are going to warp the Constitution then it should be applied to all the same. Something you don't want.
So, non-secular people are trying to use the courts.
are you against non-secular people having access to the courts?
Are you saying that the court should have refused to hear the case?
and what do you think the courts should do when they are presented a case that involves churchgoers against other churchgoers?
it is hypocrites like you that want seperation of church and state except when it doesn't get the result that you want.
I want separation of chruch and state, yes.
Then you don't want the courts determining who is and is not a memeber of any church.
but how was forcing two groups of churchgoers to share a property a result that I give a damn about one way or the other, much less what I want? That was not the ruling of the court. The court ruled that the the church must keep them as memebers. There was no ruling on division of any property because it was a red herring to confuse fools like you.
as best I can tell, you feel that the court shouldn't have agreed to hear the case at all. Is this what you think? Based on the the alleged wrong and the remedy that was apparently sought that is correct. It does not appear that there was any request for any division of property. If there was a claim for property the issues of ownership and division would be legitimate questions for the court to address.
and since you equate "morality" strictly as based in Religion, no laws based on morality at all. That isn't my argument. My argument is the FEDS need to stay out of those matters.
I could care less about what one churchgoer wants from another churchgoer.
then what are you bitching about?
It was a State court that made the ruling.
absolutely not...no.
it sounds like the court treated it like it was simply a question of who could use the building. A congregation isn't a building.
So, non-secular people are trying to use the courts.
are you against non-secular people having access to the courts?
No. where do you come up with such nonsense? Is there some pill that you take?
One of Limbaugh's points was that people like you don't care if there is a violation of separation of church and state if a the rights of the church are trampled on. Get it now?
Are you saying that the court should have refused to hear the case?
Possibly. Depending on what was alleged in the complaint and the remedy that was being sought. It appears that the complaint alleges only that they were kicked out of the church and wanted back in. If that is correct then the case should have been kicked out.
and what do you think the courts should do when they are presented a case that involves churchgoers against other churchgoers? That depends on what the issue is. Here the sole issue appears to have been membership and the Court under the the current status of the law should not have ruled on that matter.
so, if you aren't against the churchgoers accessing the court to resolve a dispute over the use of the church, what's your beef?
well, if they contributed to the building of the building, why don't they have a right to use the building?
well, glad to see you are so sure of what you are accuing others of.
I only want the U.S. Constitution applied as it is written. I have no problems with states regulating these matters within the scope of their own constitutions as the states are not Congress.
then what are you bitching about?
It was a State court that made the ruling.
But under the federal law as it is understood today that ruling is unconstitutional. If it is going to prohibit the states and the cities and the schools from involving themselves in religion then the courts must also be prohibited. The courts are government. The point is the double standard of the left.
Then you don't want the courts determining who is and is not a memeber of any church.
absolutely not...no.
Then you should condemn the court's ruling.
it sounds like the court treated it like it was simply a question of who could use the building. A congregation isn't a building.
Then you need to reread the articles. the court forced the church to take them back as memebers.
so, if you aren't against the churchgoers accessing the court to resolve a dispute over the use of the church, what's your beef?
well, if they contributed to the building of the building, why don't they have a right to use the building?
well, glad to see you are so sure of what you are accusing others of.
It sounds to me that the court treated it like a simple property rights case. Where do you get that the one group has to include the other group in their group? I only see that they have to allow them to use the building.
A Church isn't a building.
so, if you aren't against the churchgoers accessing the court to resolve a dispute over the use of the church, what's your beef?
The particular issue which in this case was church membership and the remedy which was the court forcing the church to take them back as members.
It appears that the complaint alleges only that they were kicked out of the church and wanted back in. If that is correct then the case should have been kicked out.
well, if they contributed to the building of the building, why don't they have a right to use the building? That is not what any of the articles state. But if they did give gifts then they were gifts. What the article states is that the court took some statute regarding corporations which states something about having a property right in the corporation simply by being a member. If it were truly a property rights case then the property should have been divided. The answer is not requiring the church to accept members it has rejected.
Possibly. Depending
well, glad to see you are so sure of what you are accusing others of.
I know what the issue we were discussing was. Even if the facts are not exactly as they appear to be, the facts as set out and the position pieter has taken bears out Limbaugh's point.
so, if they had legal contracts and they other party did not honor them, should they have a legal redress via the courts or does it being a court document precoude this?
if one member is harmed by another, can the State have no say in it.
it's a complicated situation.
but again, why do you think it's okay for some things (snake handling, peyote...etc) to be decided by the State and not this?
I'm STILLtrying to figure out how this is some great attack in some "secular war" though
If it is about memebership then yes.
so, if I want to screw my business partner over I can default on our contract and just claim it's a religious matter...cool.
Do you think that a Church has the right to harm it's members as long as it's within the context of the Church?
again, the case in consideration was a State court, not Federal.
I agree...that a Church is exclusionary is strange, but it's their business. But can they harm another church member without fear of the State becoming involved?
so, it was Pieter who forced them to seek a court remedy?
I did not know that
For the record, I did not file the lawsuit and to my knowledge have never set foot in Fresno.
This would seem to indicate that you feel that the states have a right to get involved in church matters, which I thought was what you were complaining about. If the states are not bound by the establishment clause, then neither are they bound by the "free exercise" clause. Caution -- slippery slope ahead.
I thought your argument was with a state court meddling in church affairs. Consistency, jethro, coinsistency.
So why not find a more definitive article about what the issues really were, and get back to us. Better yet, why not ask both attorneys for briefs?
jethro, are you seriously implying that I am attacking Christianity because I point out the illogic of your arguments? You are not Christianity and you are not typical of the Christians I know and in some cases love.
The article you linked from the Fresno paper describes the basics of the case and the outlines of the court's decision. It sounds to me like a property-interest case, as the church members owned the building and perhaps the land, and when the dissenters were tossed out, they were deprived of property and sued for redress. Nowhere there do I see a secular attack on Christianity. If that makes me an enemy of Christianity in your eyes, I'd say you were a bit paranoid.
No. The court needs to justify why id did what it did. There is nothing in the articles that indicates that there was any justification.
and if the articles are all you've read, how do you know the court didn't justify it? i'd suggest you go do a little more research before casting such aspersions.
They have the right to kick them out.
I have no problems with states regulating these matters within the scope of their own constitutions as the states are not Congress.
This would seem to indicate that you feel that the states have a right to get involved in church matters, which I thought was what you were complaining about. As usual you didn't understand.If the states are not bound by the establishment clause, then neither are they bound by the "free exercise" clause. Caution -- slippery slope ahead. The 1st amendment applies only to CONGRESS. Read it is says Congress shall make no law. The intent of those that drafted the constitution was to leave religious matters to the states and the citizens of those states.
My argument is the FEDS need to stay out of those matters.
I thought your argument was with a state court meddling in church affairs. Consistency, jethro, consistency.
I am sorry that you are to slow to understand. Let me spell it out for the intellectually challenged. The federal law is that states, cities and schools can't promote or hinder religion. This should apply to the courts to be consistent. But liberals such as yourself don't care about consistency. You just want what you want. My problem is that if the federal law is to apply here it needs to be applied consistently. Furthermore, it is people like you that should demand it be applied consistently. But, of course, people like you won't.
jethro, are you seriously implying that I am attacking Christianity because I point out the illogic of your arguments? If you think my arguments are illogical it shows how ignorant you are.
The article you linked from the Fresno paper describes the basics of the case and the outlines of the court's decision. It sounds to me like a property-interest case, as the church members owned the building and perhaps the land, and when the dissenters were tossed out, they were deprived of property and sued for redress. You are reading things into it that are not there. If that were the case the remedy is not to force those members back in but to divide the property. My guess there was no property issues at all. The court just referenced the statute that implies an amorphous property interest in the organization without any specifc interest in any particular property.Nowhere there do I see a secular attack on Christianity. If that makes me an enemy of Christianity in your eyes, I'd say you were a bit paranoid. You are proving Limbaugh's point right here.
and if the articles are all you've read, how do you know the court didn't justify it? i'd suggest you go do a little more research before casting such aspersions.
Based on the parementers of the diuscussion everything is well in order. In any event I am happy to cast aspersions on certain folks. Next.