Texas "Lawyer" says public uneducated on Constitutional law.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Texas "Lawyer" says public uneducated on Constitutional law.

I actually agree with this guy. We are, which is why the fundies have been so successful in greasing the squeaky wheel for so long. The last line in the post gives him away and of course he doesn't want to admit an agenda in his study of law.

"We don't know anything",,,,,as a public as far as Constitutional law, is his argument. DUH! Thanks for the update. But guess where his "battle cry" will lead? Yea, we have freedom of religion as long as the "outsiders" know their place and don't compete.

Quote:
Reading the article and some of the comments is distressing to me. I graduated from Texas Tech and the University of Texas School of Law. For many years I have studied church and state law (separation of church and state). Most Americans, including most law school professors and most Christians, have no knowledge, understanding, and wisdom concerning the principles concerning church and state law. They don't know the history, theology, and law surrounding the issues related to separation of church and state. Hence, we in America are suffering the consequences. For more information, go to churchandstatelaw.com.


Jerald Finney, BBA, JD, born-again believer

First, the law DOES allow for  COMPETITION OF agenda, but not protection of an agenda, as a given. What most people DONT understand is that it TAKES partisipation, it is not given. While the Constitution DOES protect the rights of all, AND SHOULD NOT, favor the right of the majority over the minority or vice versa, THAT DEPENDS on US using the "FREE MARKET". If you don't speak up, you wont be heard. And here is my response to this post. Basically "use it or lose it".

Quote:

QUOTE:"Jerald Finney, BBA, JD, born-again believer"

I am sure you have "studied" law. Just like a creationist looks for ways to justify human adults magically popping out of dirt.

No one should dispute that the founders wanted freedom of religion. But your signature gives you away. Your interpretation of the law most certainly would advocate "implied" wink wink, subjugation of outsiders, even if they are citizens.

That degree is trumped by 3 words you cant squirm around. "NO RELIGIOUS TEST".

Those words were to maintain neutrality, whereas touting your "credentials" "born again" was to "wink wink" imply a monopoly of power, Which the First Amendment was an anti-trust law.

Why do we have Jews, a Muslim and AND AN ATHEIST IN PETE STARK, serving in OUR congress?

Care to explain that, "Council"?

From this thread.....................

 

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/122009/loc_537584882.shtml#mdw-comments

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FUCK! I screwed up the quote

FUCK! I screwed up the quote block. In the last "quote" after his "credentials" which I was quoting, that was me responding to his "credentials".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Before people go claiming

Before people go claiming that I am pretending to be a lawyer I AM NOT. But anyone can understand simple concepts.

I was pointing out to this "lawyer" that studying law doesn't mean that one will apply it objectively. That is impossible since the Constitution is not a method, but an idea open to interpretation.

Which, to me, makes the First Amendment that much more important.

The most important part of it, to me, is the least recited, "right to petition the government for a redress of grievance".

This is the built in protection of dissent. This does not mean that one is guaranteed that the courts will side with you, majority or minority, but provides all citizens the OPPORTUNITY to make a case. AND it allows for change.

This "lawyer" like many on the right still want it both ways. They want "freedom" but quickly object when someone challenges the driver's seat.

IF the founders didn't want any challenge to Christianity, it would have been quite simple to put into the Constitution a stipulation that "you are welcome to live here, pay taxes, and vote, but you cant hold office unless you are some sort of Christian"

The failure to do such in the Constitution is obvious, or at least it should be, to anyone who has eyes and can read. It doesn't take a law degree to read the oath of office and to read "NO RELIGIOUS TEST"

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37