Friday, January 22, 2010



Psalms banned, but witchcraft OK

Supreme Court endorses 'hostility' toward Christianity
"A lower court's "hostility" towards Christianity will stand after the U.S. Supreme Court today refused to intervene in a school district's censorship of a kindergartener's choice of literature for a class reading. "By refusing to hear Mrs. Busch's case, the U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed the kind of hostility toward religion that should never be found in an American public school," said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which took on the Newtown Square, Pa., case.

As WND reported, Donna Busch accepted an invitation to visit her son Wesley's kindergarten classroom at Culbertson Elementary School to read a passage of Wesley's favorite book to his classmates in October 2004. Wesley's teacher had invited Busch because the boy was the featured student of "All About Me," a school event to feature a particular student and emphasize the student's personal characteristics, preferences and personality in classroom activities.

During the "All About Me" activity, a child's parent may read aloud from the student's favorite book. In this case, Wesley, a Christian, chose the Bible. His mother planned to read from Psalm 118.

But when Donna Busch prepared to read from the Bible, Wesley's teacher instructed her not to do so until Principal Thomas Cook could determine whether it would be acceptable. According to the Rutherford Institute, the principal "informed Mrs. Busch that she could not read from the Bible in the classroom because it was against the law and that the reading would violate the 'separation of church and state.'"

Then school administrators offered Wesley's mother an opportunity to read from a book about witches, witchcraft and Halloween. She declined the invitation.

Source

4 comments:

We The People said...

What the SCOTUS has done in this case is give legitimacy to a constitutional right "that does not exist".

Thomas Jefferson's words were never more true, nor more necessary, than they are now.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Anonymous said...

lets burn the teacher and principal for being witches,,dumbass bastards

Roger said...

It's amazing how the SCOTUS has managed to reinterpret a provision intended to guarantee religious freedom in such a way that it can be used to suppress religious freedom!!
The First Amendment states that:
·
· "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
·
It seems pretty clear to any man or woman in the street that the second clause of this is supposed to stop the US Federal government from interfering with the free expression of someone's religion. Such as reading from a sacred text, for example. Yet SCOTUS — admittedly not Congress, but then the Constitution seems to think that SCOTUS shouldn't make laws at all — SCOTUS has managed to twist the first clause into such a pretzel as to do just that.

Apparently failing to prohibit free exercise of religion on Federal property somehow, through some mystical verbal legerdemain understood only by the Supremes, constitutes a "law respecting an establishment of religion." Yet while doing nothing can somehow be so broadly interpreted it is considered to be the same thing as making a law, at the same time altering the interpretation of a law so that it has the effect of prohibiting religious expression is obviously totally and utterly different to actually making a law to prohibit religious expression. (It should be obvious to any reasonable person that this is utter bull****; if your BS detector didn't go "ping", you may well be a political animal, perhaps even well-suited to descend the rungs further to outright lawyery.)

Many people at this point will sigh, shake their heads at the vileness that is lawyery, but mutter "It isn't quite so bad, the intention of the Amendment is to prevent religious oppression and you can still practice free expression of your religion anywhere in the US other than on Federal property." Well, that's ok for civilians. But as is typical of the dimwitted idiocy that these wise greybeards spout, there is an unintended consequence: this interpretation means it is also illegal for members of the Armed Forces to practice their religion whilst on duty or on Federal property — which for many of them means "for years on end."

SCOTUS doesn't seem to have spotted this political suicide blunder, but when they do it will be revolting^Wfascinating to watch the legerdemain by which they back down whilst pretending not to contradict their earlier rulings.

Anonymous said...

The problem here is not that SCOTUS didn't intervene - appellate courts need to exercise some restraint and routinely grant leave only to a limited number of cases any year - but that because they chose not to, we are stuck with a ridiculous situation.
That said, the school created this situation by setting themselves up in this way.