You quoted Ann Coulter? Most conservatives, including me, know she's waaaaaaaay 'off kilter'. Until the libs try to put some if this in a courthouse, they'll be safe. It's only a matter of time though.

You quoted Ann Coulter?

We often do.

Most conservatives, including me, know she's waaaaaaaay 'off kilter'.

Sure they do. Uh huh. Back away from your magical mushrooms.

Until the libs try to put some if this in a courthouse, they'll be safe. It's only a matter of time though.

If you really had a problem with the Coulter quote, you might try actually refuting any of it.

Some of us happen to like satanic bunnies.

"aspiriring terrorists at Guantanamo given Korans"

Is Jim Kopp allowed to have a bible?

I believe that there is little difference, both terrorists and Mr Kopp killed in the name God and both found their inspiration in the holy books of their respective religions.
The difference is in the case of Mr Kopp his religion is also the magority religion of the country he commited the crime in.
As far as Ms Coulter goes, she should be the front women for conservatives.

Sounds like the usual Coulter nuttiness. Of course, it really makes no sense at all, because she is comparing apples to oranges. The Court wouldn't allow verses from the Koran to be displayed in a courthouse, either. Nor would the Court object to a federally funded show of artistic work some of which included Christian themes. And Christian prisoners at Guantanamo are doubtless entitled to Bibles at government expense.

"Is Jim Kopp allowed to have a bible?"

Who? I've heard a lot about the terroristS at Gitmo, but jack about this Kopp guy :)

"The difference is in the case of Mr Kopp his religion is also the magority religion of the country he commited the crime in."

Did they buy "Mr Kopp" a Bible?

"As far as Ms Coulter goes, she should be the front women for conservatives."

Damned skippy, retard! :)

"Sounds like the usual Coulter nuttiness."

Too a simpleton the magnitude of yourself, I'm sure it does.

"Of course, it really makes no sense at all, "

Yeah...except it does.

"because she is comparing apples to oranges."

No. She's comparing public fundind or the use of publicly owned property to public funding or the use of publicly owned property.

"The Court wouldn't allow verses from the Koran to be displayed in a courthouse, either."

Why not?

"Nor would the Court object to a federally funded show of artistic work some of which included Christian themes."

Why?

"And Christian prisoners at Guantanamo are doubtless entitled to Bibles at government expense."

LOL! Buffoon! Do tell! How man "Christian" prisoners at Gitmo are there?! :)

public funding - not - public fundind
How many - not - how man

Why wouldn't the Court allow verses from the Koran to be displayed in a courthouse? For the same reason that the Court won't allow the 10 Commandments--because it gives the impression of a State endorsement of the tenets of a particular religion.

Why wouldn't the Court object to federal funding of an art show in which some works exhibited Christian themes? Because it is clear that the themes of artwork reflect the views of the artist and are not a State endorsement of his religion.

And it doesn't matter how many Christian prisoners there are at Gitmo. The point is that a prisoner there--or at any other US prison--wants a Bible--or the Tao Te Cheng, for that matter--to worship, he can have it. The point is that which religious book is the prisoner's choice, not the government's, so it does not represent a State endorsement of a particular religion.

"Why wouldn't the Court allow verses from the Koran to be displayed in a courthouse?"

Yeah. Maybe you can read!

"For the same reason that the Court won't allow the 10 Commandments-"

Which is?

"-because it gives the impression of a State endorsement of the tenets of a particular religion."

No it doesn't. It reflects the personal preferences of the Judge or Judges who occupy the office.

"Why wouldn't the Court object to federal funding of an art show in which some works exhibited Christian themes?"

The legislature controls the purse strings, bub. They represent us. If they choose legislators that think that type of funding is allowed it isn't the place of the Judiciary to step in and tell them otherwise.

"Because it is clear that the themes of artwork reflect the views of the artist and are not a State endorsement of his religion."

Same with whatever art a particular Judge chooses to display. It's expression. Tell me why freedom of expression is tolerated in this country! :)

"And it doesn't matter how many Christian prisoners there are at Gitmo."

The hell it doesn't! :) You know damned well how many Christians are imprisoned at Gitmo!

"The point "

You are icapable of making a point it seems.

"is that a prisoner there--or at any other US prison--wants a Bible--or the Tao Te Cheng, for that matter--to worship, he can have it."

Have it? Or have it suspended from special devices so it doesn't touch the damned floor, buffoon?

" The point"

No matter how many times you say it, it won't make it true.

"is that which religious book is the prisoner's choice, not the government's,"

So we should purchas bibles for prisoners and hang Koran's above the floor so as to keep them from being impure....at taxpayer's expense.

"so it does not represent a State endorsement of a particular religion."

So you have examples of elaborate mechanisms being provided to "Christian" prisoners so that their bible doesn't touch the floor or something equivalent to that?

To Valiant Elephant

Jim Kopp is a right wing Christan activist who in 1998 stalked and killed Dr. Barnett Slepian a ob-gyn from upstate NY for working in a abortion clinic. Jim Kopp is considered a martyr for the cause by a number of right wing Christan anti-abortion groups.

"Jim Kopp is a right wing"

We don't claim him.

"Christan"

They don't claim him either.

"activist who in 1998 stalked and killed Dr. Barnett Slepian a ob-gyn from upstate NY for working in a abortion clinic."

He murdered a murderer? He should not have taken the law into his own hands. Kopp got what he deserved.

"Jim Kopp is considered a martyr for the cause by a number of right wing Christan anti-abortion groups."

No he isn't. I don't pity the slime bag he murdered. Not a bit. But I sure as hell don't approve of vigilante justice to solve the injustice. Find me a "right wing Christian anti-abortion group" that "considers him a martyr"!!! This should be fun! :) Come on, Moonbat. You even used "GroupS"..Find me a couple! :)

Dear VE,

Try googleing Jim Kopp. The first is a group that calls it self "Missonaries for the Unborn"
or some such the second is a FBI document and the third is another religous group.
I would provide a link but I'm not very well versed in HTML, yet.

"The first is a group that calls it self "Missonaries for the Unborn"

Who? :) Since you've driven this discussion off topic with another of your inane tirades based on your limited experiences (and blatantly avoided answering a question relevant to the debate of some idiotic remark you made previously), I'll steer you back toward something approaching relevant debate of the subject at hand:

You asked:

"Is Jim Kopp allowed to have a bible?"

Sure. Did our tax dollars pay for Mr. Kopp's book? Did they pay for a special mechanism to keep it from touching the ground or place it in some other taxpayer funded position of honor? :)

Sounds like the usual Coulter nuttiness.

Exactly what would you consider to be "nuttiness?" Was she making up the facts of the examples she cited? Exactly what constitutes "nuttiness" to you?

Of course, it really makes no sense at all, because she is comparing apples to oranges. The Court wouldn't allow verses from the Koran to be displayed in a courthouse, either.

Don't bet on that. Given the examples of the outrageous things that the government funds (that the "nutty" Ann Coulter points out some of) and the SCOTUS looks the other way on, it wouldn't surprise me if they did order Koran phrases to be posted in all courts in the land.

Nor would the Court object to a federally funded show of artistic work some of which included Christian themes.

They've objected and ruled on other things Christian repeatedly, why don't you think they'd do it again?

And Christian prisoners at Guantanamo are doubtless entitled to Bibles at government expense.

Yea, just as Israelis who are held prisoner by the Al Aqsa Brigades are receiving copies of the Talmud and being served Kosher meals, no doubt. I mean just before they're beheaded.

Nobody's buying your tired old cliches and moral equivalences anymore. We now see what this foolishness has wrought and the worm has turned.

My original post was in answer to another post concerning Anne Coulters statements.He asked for someone to refute one of them, so I did. The other two posts were answering your challanges.
The only quesion I blatently did not answer was the one about a special mechanism for not letting the Koran touch the floor, there is no reciprocal mechinism for the bible because neither Christianity or Judism requires such, Islam does.

Reverend-

A judge is a representative of the government no matter whether it be federal,local,or state and as such can't convay religous affiliation.(That bothersome 3rd I believe amendment). That same judge could in private practice display any religous affiliation he or she wanted even say Anton Levay.

"My original post was in answer to another post concerning Anne Coulters statements."

LOL! Really? Which one?!

"He asked for someone to refute one of them,"

Which you, being the sh*t for brains that you are, totally failed to do:

"aspiriring terrorists at Guantanamo given Korans"

That is what you quoted. They are given a Koran. Was Jim Kopp "given" a Bible? Or as I pointed out, was he given a special li'l thing to put it on by the state? :) Still waiting for you to answer a question directly.

" so I did."

"They let this murderer have a bible." Isn't a damned refutation. It's a pathetic attempt at equating allowing one to have a book and giving them that book and a contraption to prevent it from being befouled by spirit stuff.

"The other two posts were answering your challanges."

:) And what an oustanding job you did! NOT! You are pathetic.

"The only quesion I blatently did not answer was the one about a special mechanism for not letting the Koran touch the floor,"

And whether or not the state provided Jim Kopp with a bible :)

"there is no reciprocal mechinism for the bible because neither Christianity or Judism requires such, Islam does."

Who gives a crap what some religion "requires", you hypocrite sack of crap! Is it the states job to provide what is required by religion?! :) You are batting a thousand!

"A judge is a representative of the government"

Nope. A judge has a job. Being a "representative" isn't one of their jobs. You may point to something regarding the job description of a judge to refute, or you can retract your ignorant remark.

"no matter whether it be federal,local,or state "

It doesn't matter what their religious affililation is.

"and as such can't convay religous affiliation."

Bullsh*t. Are you familiar with the Constitution of the United States? "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free excersize there of". There is nothing in the constitution that states a Judge can't display religious symbolism. If there is, make sure and point that one out to us!

"(That bothersome 3rd I believe amendment)."

Do tell! How does the 3rd ammendment to the Constitution prevent Judges from displaying religious symbolism!

"That same judge could in private practice display any religous affiliation he or she wanted even say Anton Levay."

If Anton Levay were to be sworn in as a Justice of the peace, I say he can display whatever the hell he wants! Pun intended. I'm not worried about that happening......ever. :)

(That bothersome 3rd I believe amendment).

OK, beacon of brilliance, here's the 3rd amendment of the US Constitution:

That No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Pray tell me again how the "bothersome 3rd amendment" has anything to do with the subject at hand. If you can't, can we safely assume you have no clue about that which you speak?

Oh, and as for Anton Lavey,

# Name: The Church of Satan

# Founder: Anton Szandor Lavey

# Date of Birth and Death: April 11, 1930 - Oct. 29 1997

I think it is safe to conclude that he won't be getting elected/appointed to anything in this world - ever.

Do you and your liberal pals sit around smoking some Acapulco gold or Panama red, taking hits off your bong and dreaming up this crap?

I stand corrected, thats why I wrote (I believe),
however I meant the third article of the constitution which is the one that gaurantees religious freedom.
The Anton Lavey was a reference was illistrating that the hypothetical judge could in private practice display any religous affiliation he pleased even a extreme one.

Sorry the second psrt should have read The referance to Anton Lavey was to illistrate the hypothetical judge could in private practice display any religous affiliation he wanted.Even a extreme one.

Same with whatever art a particular Judge chooses to display. It's expression. Tell me why freedom of expression is tolerated in this country!

He is free to express anything he wishes in his home. But a courthouse is a governmental building, so things that are displayed there give the impression of official endorsement. Free expression doesn't necessarily mean that you are entitled display anything that you choose at your place of work. Would you say, for example, that a judge would be entitled to display a framed picture of Saddam Hussein in his office? Or wear a T-shirt with a political slogan to court instead of his robes?

Have it? Or have it suspended from special devices so it doesn't touch the damned floor, buffoon?

If he happened to belong to a sect in which this was required, most certainly. Prisoners are entitled to access to their devotional books, and to have them treated in a respectful manner according to the tenets of their religion, subject only to the limits required to maintain prison security.

They've objected and ruled on other things Christian repeatedly, why don't you think they'd do it again?

Christian themes appear quite commonly in American art, as it is a major part of our culture. And many art institutions receive some funding from the NEA. So can you name any example of Christian themed art that the Court--or indeed, any US court--ruled must be excluded from an art show?

Yea, just as Israelis who are held prisoner by the Al Aqsa Brigades are receiving copies of the Talmud and being served Kosher meals, no doubt. I mean just before they're beheaded.

When did we start turning to al Qaeda to set legal or moral standards for America?

"He is free to express anything he wishes in his home."

Show me where a distinction is made regarding where one is allowed to express oneself and where they are not.

"But a courthouse is a governmental building,"

And there is nothing saying that religious symbolism can not be present on public property.

"so things that are displayed there give the impression of official endorsement."

If that endorsement were mandated rather than voluntary, you would have a case. As it stands, one courthouse may have religious symbolism as artwork and one may not. There are numerous religious symbols in the Supreme Court of the United States, for example.

"Free expression doesn't necessarily mean that you are entitled display anything that you choose at your place of work."

Sure it does.

"Would you say, for example, that a judge would be entitled to display a framed picture of Saddam Hussein in his office?"

Yep. If he's so inclined, I'd rather know his inclinations than for him to have them and hide them from me.

"Or wear a T-shirt with a political slogan to court instead of his robes? "

Now who's talking apples and oranges? The dress code of the the judiciary is a matter of tradition. Is there some renegade Justice wearing tie-dyes and bell bottoms in some courtroom we don't know about? If it isn't presently expressly stated that a justice must wear traditional robes, then far be it from me to demand it of them.

"If he happened to belong to a sect in which this was required, most certainly."

So now you're peachy with letting religious doctrine influence our laws?

"Prisoners are entitled to access to their devotional books, and to have them treated in a respectful manner according to the tenets of their religion, subject only to the limits required to maintain prison security."

You'll provide the letter of the law of this land that provides for this "entitlement".

"When did we start turning to al Qaeda to set legal or moral standards for America?"

When did we imprison "Christians" in Gitmo?! :)

You'll provide the letter of the law of this land that provides for this "entitlement".

See this recent Supreme Court Decision

See this recent...

My reading of the referenced text indicates only that the prisoners are to be allowed to exercise their religion, but gives the government a big loophole, namely:

But the Act does not elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution's need to maintain order and safety. An accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other significant interests.

I could find nowhere in the text verbiage which supports your assertion, especially to the "respect" portion, and it looks like the government can easily say that security does not permit the "practice" and that would be difficult to disprove, considering that the decision itself relies on the discretion of the prison administrator:

Lawmakers supporting RLUIPA were mindful of the urgency of discipline, order, safety, and security in penal institutions and anticipated that courts would apply the Act's standard with due deference to prison administrators' experience and expertise.

That's a loophole you can drive a Mack truck through. One false move on the part of any prisoner "practising" his faith and they can disallow it for security's sake (or even to maintain "good order.")

Another sentence from the opinion states:

Should inmate requests for religious accommodations become excessive, impose unjustified burdens on other institutionalized persons, or jeopardize the effective functioning of an institution, the facility would be free to resist the imposition.

Now there's a loophole that any lawyer would love.

I could find nowhere in the text verbiage which supports your assertion, especially to the "respect" portion, and it looks like the government can easily say that security does not permit the "practice" and that would be difficult to disprove, considering that the decision itself relies on the discretion of the prison administrator:

As I said, subject "to the limits required to maintain prison security". So if somebody insists that their religion requires that they be armed with a knife at all times (as the Sikh religion in fact does) the prison authorities can reasonably object. But it is hard to argue that giving somebody a little bag to pin his religious book up off the floor endangers prison security, or poses any kind of unjustified burden on other prisoners. If your point is that a prison administrator in a place such as Guantanomo might be able to get away with abusing his discretion, this is undoubtedly true, but I'm not sure that it is relevant.

If your point is that a prison administrator...

I thought my point was pretty clear. I said that there are many loopholes in the decision which negate the assertion you made when you said:

Prisoners are entitled to access to their devotional books, and to have them treated in a respectful manner according to the tenets of their religion, subject only to the limits required to maintain prison security.

The decision, and the quotations I provided showed that the ruling did not say "subject only to the limits required to maintain prison security" but gave several other reasons that the prison could deny prisoner requests based on other issues like maintaining "order" and "safety" and left the determination as to what that actually means to the prison administrators. They don't have to abuse their discretion, all they have to do is determine that letting a bunch of terrorists sworn to attack and kill Americans (including their captors) at any opportunity assemble in groups, worship, or even have unnecessary contact with prison guards to be too dangerous.

There are already plenty of documented cases of the prisoners attacking guards with every intent to kill or to maim them because they feel it is their religious duty. So no abuse of discretion is necessary - just caution and prudence. The point of all this is that the ruling did little to "enforce" any religious rights of the prisoners and gave a lot of leeway as to interpretation to the administrators. That means the decision from the court had little enforcement ability - i.e., a feel-good decision, but nothing is likely to be affected by the decision.

I thought I made that clear before. But your insistence on claiming that the only issue is security indicates you either did not pay attention or decided to ignore that part. If you don't see the loopholes and the lack of any muscle in this "decision", then I can not help you further.

Political speech writer and freelance columnist, Doug Patton, recently wrote an editorial on the Hernando Today web site titled Ask me if I care about 'mishandling' of Koran.

The whole thing is a good read, but here's part of it:

The results of said investigation are now in, and it seems there are at least five incidents of "mishandling" of the Koran at Gitmo.

Well, guess what? I DON'T CARE!

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the
Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked
American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

He goes on to describe when he WILL start caring:

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about
the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

I'll care when Clinton-appointed judges stop ordering my government to release photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which are sure to set off the Islamic extremists just as Newsweek's lies did a few weeks ago.

Sounds about right to me.

Okay, maybe some of this has been covered already, but I grew tired or reading the same circular argument over and over again and just had to post.

Please remember when debating with liberals that one of their favorite tactics is to change the subject and derail an argument so that the conservative can never establish a point. Their other tactic is to take as a given that whey they conject is fact and then use that as leverage.

Bottom line is this: The establishment clause clearly states that CONGRESS (NOT the courts) shall make NO LAWS "respecting" the ESTABLISHMENT of religeon. That's it. It does not state that the judiciary or congress shall protect citizens from any form of religious influence or endorsment. It is specifically crafted to allow people the free practice of their chosen religion. It is a controll placed on the LEGISLATIVE branch, prevnting the lawmaking portion of government (not the law INTERPRETING portion) from establishing a national religion.

It therefore also holds that congress cannot PREVENT a state or municipality from establishing their own religion, since congress has no constitutional power to invoke or craft ANY law regarding the establishment of religion.

This is very clear. If a state courthouse wishes to post the ten commandments, they are constitutionally authorized to do so. The Supreme court clearly had it wrong here.

And by posting said commandments, exactly which religion was established (by congress), thereby violating this clause? Judaism? Catholicism? Protestantism? Mormons? Assemblies of God? Baptists? Methodists? Lutherans?

Who exactly is being established here?

The correlaries Coulter draws are perfectly valid. These are organizations funded by public monies which submit often extreem and offensive materials. Yet other organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America, are constantly under fire because they espouse Christian values and are against homosexuality.

And how can anyone forget that this is the FIRST ammendment??? Does one really need to be a constitutional scholar to recall the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's it. Nothing more. It says nothing about endorsements, support, references, et al. It makes no reference to the judiciary, or the public display of religious artifacts.