"Zayton" <zayton at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0JRa9.78471$%v4.3260851 at e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> news:vlPa9.14084$Ic7.1317648 at news2.west.cox.net...> >
> > "Joseph A Nagy Jr" <pagan_prince at charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D6AD985.5090703 at charter.net...> > > Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
> > > > Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> OR, we could simply live by the Holy Bible as the Constitution of
> this
> > > >>> Christian nation proclaims:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The Constitution of this not-Christian-nation proclaims no such
> thing.
> > > >>
> > > >> [Bible quotes without ANY Constitutional quotes deleted as
irrelevant
> > > >> to the claim].
> > > >>
> > > >> lojbab
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah lets just forget this idiot. I've posted twice proof that prayer
is
> > > > not banned from public school, yet him and Mr. August still contend
it
> > is.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > My point being that they will ignore everything we say, no matter how
> much
> > > proof to the contrary.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Just because two morons meet on a bus and agree that the moon is made of
> > Swiss cheese doesn't mean that the moon is made of Swiss cheese.
> >
> > Just because a feminazi and a "liberal" agree with each other that
school
> > prayer was never banned doesn't mean that school prayer was never
banned:
> >
> > 1962: Engel v. Vitale. The Court ruled that public
> > school officials could not require pupils to recite a slate-
> > composed prayer at the start of each school day, even if the
> > prayer was nondenominational and pupils who so desired
> > could be excused from reciting it, because such official
> > state sanction of religious unerances was an unconsitu-
> > tional attempt to establish religion.
> >
> >
> > This was called "BANNING SCHOOL PRAYER".
>> No. this was called banning the government regulation of prayer. It
doesn't
> say anything about the individual's freedom to pray; only the authority of
> School officials to tell people whether they can pray or not. Do you ever
> actually read any of the crap you post. half the time you disprove your
own
> arguements.
>> Joe
>
This is like the jews who say, when they spray bullets at Palestinian
children, "look, they WANTED to die--if they didn't want to die, they would
have dodged the bullets".
The "supreme" court banned a practice which had been PROTECTED under the US
Constitution and the First Amendment for almost two centuries, just as our
Christian Founding Forefathers desired, and BANNED it.
What was that practice? Why, spoken Christian prayer in public schools, of
course. What the court did was exactly 180 degrees the reverse of what our
Christian Founding Forefathers envisioned.
Now, what changed in the US Constitution, Joe? Nothing. Did the people
rise up in arms and demand that their children be prohibited from saying a
simple spoken CHRISTIAN prayer in their "public school" classrooms? Why,
no. The only thing that changed is that we permitted MORON jews to "sit" on
the "supreme" court.
Was that a good idea? No. Was it a popular idea? No, to this day, more
than two thirds of Americans OPPOSE this ruling
http://christianparty.net/schoolprayer.htm
You can weasel word all you want--but it won't change a single fact.
John Knight
