I just read this story and thought it worthwhile to post the link. We are definitely we should have something to think about this.

Court Bans Christian Symbols, but...

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

In a related story. No Christians were seen taking to the streets with placards demanding that the judges be beheaded.

I had originally written something.. and it would be nice to see the brief. I wondered why the creche and if they still provided that Christians could display a cross during Christmas/Easter.

Pyrohy,

I think you need to read the story before venting. Then you really might have a rant or two.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Yeah I did read it, left in a sort of disbelief, came quickly back and it sank in.
Of all the stories you hear on a daily basis, this is actually one to pay attention to.
I'd still like to see the decision to see what language the judges used.. a precursor of things to come.
My brother just sent me something about marines praying at a base. There's a picture of them bowing in prayer. The email says the aclu is mad because they say that these marines are federal workers on federal property and praying on the federal property is a sign of establishing a religion.
It isn't right folks, isn't right.

Why is there freedom for all religion except Christianity?

Death hates life. Very very simple.

Just one step closer to the End.

The text of the decision will probably be posted Thursday at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/

It is not there yet.

Sounds alot like the 9th "Circus" Court in San Francisco...

james

Ain't that the truth.

The opinion is here. (Best to save target as... ; it's over 100 pages.)

There were plenty of Christmas symbols in the schools. The policy of the city's Department of Education helped to make this situation possible, while complying with establishment constraints. None of of the holiday displays, however, could include symbols of a "purely religious" nature. Items with a religious origin could be presented if they also had "developed significant secular connotations". The court affirmed the constitutionality of this policy. The partial dissent, I think, was over the judgment-call regarding "purely religious" symbols versus those that had "developed significant secular connotations". The court specifically did not rule whether or not purely religious symbols could be included in the diplays, as that issue was not litigated.

CWN's representation of the facts of the case and the decision is disgraceful.

djs,

How so?

Thanks for the link, BTW.

Gordo

The headline and the first sentence are flatly false. The second sentence, while strictly true, leaves out so many relevant facts that it is potentially very misleading. There is not the merest effort to detail the school policy, the facts of the case, the specific issues under litigation, or the actual ruling. The article is at best uninformative and at worst inflammatory and dishonest. I hate to see such writing in a publication that uses the word "Catholic" in its name.

So does this look like it will be going back to the Courts for a challenge?