Originally Posted by nutz4benz
"Whatever is Christian is legal; whatever is not is illegal." David Barton
Who is david barton?
More importantly, who cares?
Go read the decision of the Court and tell me how you -- or anyone who reads and understands English -- could conclude ANYTHING about Christianity -- or any other religion -- or legal -- or illegal -- from the ruling?
The Court didn't say it was legal.
The Court didn't say it was illegal.
The Court didn't say it was Christian.
The Court didn't say it was Muslim. Or Buddhist. Or leftist. Or conservative.
The Court didn't say it was orange.
The Court didn't say it was forty-three.
The Court didn't say it was alkp 98q[apv.
Those last few statements don't make much sense, do they?
That is the exact point.
The Court did not reach, touch or even offer an oblique opinion on the BASIS of the plaintiffs' alleged claims. They didn't rule one way or the other about whether the plaintiffs' proved anything or didn't prove anything. Parties don't get the opportunity to introduce evidence until they meet the procedural requirements to even bring a lawsuit.
Here the plaintiffs did not meet that initial requirement, so the Court doesn't even see their evidence. They have no idea whether it's good, bad, purple, clear or forty-three. It's a procedural decision, nothing more, nothing less. These kinds of procedural rulings happen all the time, and the only reason you've heard about this one is because the underlying nature of the lawsuit is a hot topic nowadays. Same thing with stem cells, abortion, nuclear misc., guns, etc.
Nutz, I like you, but you're suffering from a knee-jerk reaction to something you've not bothered to investigate.
And just so we're clear -- since you seem to be desperate for this to be a Christian vs. non-Christian issue -- then for the record, faith-based initiatives don't only mean the "Christian" faith. They are "FAITH" based, not "CHRISTIAN" based. There are faith-based programs that are not Christian based and they are funded from the same program, so it's not some sort of value judgment based on the nature
of the faith. (Hey, it was said in jest, but Wicca might have a shot...)
Of course you might prefer that there be NO faith based initiatives or programs, but that's a different issue, and completely irrelevant to the Court's decision.
Help me understand what it is you don't understand about this?