stephanie is: 
working.
hello. i am at work. here is another story my daddy sent me about mainstream religions trying to rid the world of any religion that differs from theirs:
i am kinda out of it and tired and stressed. danny went to give notice at our apartment today. we also have turned in our applications for dsl at the new house. unfortunatly bell satanic requires 30-45 days to turn it on so there will be down time on stvlive.com of up to a few weeks. we turned our apps in as soon as we could (when we got our new phone number). i am setting up a little $5 a month geoshities site that will be my temporary page. danny advised me against changing the dns so it will just have a dumb url that i’ll give you soon. i’d reg a new url to use with it then transfer over when we’re back up, but i can’t afford to right now. bah, well back to work.
Ick, I remember when we got our bell satanic dsl turned on.. or were supposed to, and they were a month overdue and we didn’t have dsl all summer. Do you have to go with them?
we have a different isp, but we HAVE to rely on both ba and covad to turn stuff on…
Bwaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!
You said, “rely on ba and covad”! 🙂
They’re two of the most unreliable companies on the face of the planet 🙂
If it has to do anything with the occult, I don’t want anything to do with it.
I read that article and I agree on something.
Ren? Monette said, ?The Wiccan church is against everything we stand for as a Christian nation and as a Christian faith,? says Pastor Monette. ?And we wanna stand up and say no in our community. We wanna say no, absolutely not!?
That’s so true. There’s a lot of things that people do and that doesn’t mean it’s all good. If anyone is involved with witchcraft, I want far away from the person. They are probably nice, kind, funny, and sweet but I don’t want to be close to that – the occult for personal reasons.
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult, I don’t want anything to do with it.
Right on sister! I wish people were more understanding…and see the light of God!
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult, I don’t want anything to do with it.
There’s the small matter of the separation of church and state … terms like “Christian nation” fly in the face of that basic concept. Near as I could tell from the article, the idea of suppressing tarot reading (an amusing diversion at worst) at a private meeting is a chilling concept, from the point of view of individual rights and freedoms.
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult, I don’t want anything to do with it.
>There’s the small matter of the separation of >church and state …
“Article the third : 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.” — First ammendment to The Constitution of the United States of America
>terms like “Christian nation” fly in the face of >that basic concept.
They do not. Indeed, the nation was mostly Christian in it’s early history, and only in recent history have Christians become a minority. But to the first ammendment says nothing about using words to decribe a nation by it’s majority (as it then was) is prohibited. Just that the federal government itself cannot make any laws about religion. The law in question is a state (or maybe even more local) law, which has nothing to do with the First Ammendment at all. (or rather, should not. The current state of legal precedent is depressingly unconstitutional in this regard)
>Near as I could tell from the article, the idea >of suppressing tarot reading (an amusing >diversion at worst) at a private meeting is a >chilling concept, from the point of view of >individual rights and freedoms.
I disagree on the degree of harm caused by occult practices, but that’s just difference of world views, and not somethign i care to debate. The idea of using law as the means of supressing free exercise of religion is indeed chilling, but not (to my thinking) the idea of a community or local government attempting this through civil means. (peer pressure, protests, etc) that’s just a worldview thing though. 🙂
anyway, that’s my 01
The Foolishness of Constitutional Anachronism
The law in question is a state (or maybe even more local) law, which has nothing to do with the First Ammendment at all. (or rather, should not. The current state of legal precedent is depressingly unconstitutional in this regard)
“Precedent” defines what is constitutional, to the best degree possible. On the fringes of the law, the courts make mistakes. But the incorporation doctrine you would challenge is a body of precedent running through literally hundreds of Supreme Court cases and thousands of lower Federal court cases, to say nothing of the body of State caselaw which accepts and applies the doctrines.
The protections of the Bill of Rights which fall within the concepts of due process (protection of liberty and life), equal protection of the law, and equal privileges and immunities of the law, have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment of the constitution one by one throughout this century. Even the most conservative judges on any federal bench today acknowledge that the First Amendment (which clearly involves personal liberty) is incorporated into the Due Process clause of the Fourth Amendment. It’s harder, I admit, to say that the non-establishment clause is a due process matter, but it fits very well within the notion of equal protection, also guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
In English: The Bill of Rights originally only controlled the Federal Government. But the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, starts with the words “No State…” and prevents states from the kinds of civil rights abuses, deprivations of liberty, etc. that they had been able to get away with before. The courts looked at the Bill of Rights and said, “wow, some of those fit awfully well within the broader concepts guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.” Case by case, they “incorporated” rights which they judged “fundamental” to a system embracing “due process” into the 14th Amendment, to apply against the States.
Some people would have us go back to the constitutional protections we had in 1787. Or, more accurately, 1862. If you’re looking forward to criminal trials without defense counsel, even often without a jury, no free speech protection against state laws, no guarantee of a jury in a large civil trial, no guarantee that the state will not regulate to discriminate against your religion, and no privilege against self-incrimination in state courts, then of course you want the Bill of Rights deincorporated (I can confidently say it’ll never happen). Otherwise, you should reconsider.
With modern communication, transportation, and so forth, this nation is much more the United States than it was in 1787, 1862, or even 1950. The excuses for giving States broad reach to interfere with personal liberties as they see fit are paltry.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to apply against the states is here to stay. Millions across the U.S., if they knew what it meant, would heave a sigh of relief.
TPH
student, second year, University of Minnesota Law School
Re: The Foolishness of Constitutional Anachronism
I am not a law student, so I’m not even going to insult you by trying to pretending to intelligently speak about the legal definition of precedent or legal history. I meant the precedents were unfortunate from a purely Christian perspective, not from a “most freedom for everybody” perspective.
“Some people would have us go back to the constitutional protections we had in 1787. Or, more accurately, 1862. If you’re looking forward to criminal trials without defense counsel, even often without a jury, no free speech protection against state laws, no guarantee of a jury in a large civil trial, no guarantee that the state will not regulate to discriminate against your religion, and no privilege against self-incrimination in state courts, then of course you want the Bill of Rights deincorporated (I can confidently say it’ll never happen). Otherwise, you should reconsider.”
Of course I would like those protections. I never meant any legal implications beyond the fact that I morally believe that a society should be able to decide what is and what is not acceptable within it’s borders, on a local level – say a community or a city.
“With modern communication, transportation, and so forth, this nation is much more the United States than it was in 1787, 1862, or even 1950. The excuses for giving States broad reach to interfere with personal liberties as they see fit are paltry.”
I’m not one of those “states rights” people, only people who believe that local government is better equipped to manage it’s constituents than federal government. I would be for a spot decision that local morality laws would not be subject to federal interference.
And that’s all I meant.
BTW, in deference to poor Stephanie, please direct any firther responses to my posts to my own journal, so she doesn’t have hers turned into a war zone.
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult, I don’t want anything to do with it.
So, if there were a number of Pagans living in your community, and they decided they didn’t want you or any other Christians living there, you’d be ok with that? You’d think it was acceptable if your child were sent home from school and accused of saying a prayer to make a teacher sick? You wouldn’t mind having your holy spaces, altars and home vandalized as part of a campaign to rid the town of unwanted Christians? You wouldn’t be bothered by people calling you and threatening your life if you didn’t move? You wouldn’t consider it to be disturbing or chilling if an officer came to the door of you home while you were having a Bible study and started taking pictures to see if anyone was reading Biblical prophecy (which can easily be likened to ‘fortune telling’ – though so can trying to forecast the weather or the stock market)?
These questions aren’t things I’m just making up – each of those questions is based on something that has happened to Pagans that have either been written about in the news or which I have been told about (by people involved in the situation) on the mailing lists I belong to within the last week.
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult…
I think this says it all:
“The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.”
President George Washington
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult…
>I think this says it all:
>
>”The government of the United States is in no >sense founded on the Christian religion.”
> President George Washington
Well, I think history would refute you if you ever read any of the Federalist Papers closely, or any of the state constituions of the early states. I think you’d find it hard not to get three or four sentences into any of them without mention of God and affirmation of belief in God.
“WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” — First sentence of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
“We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.” — First line of the Constitution of the State of New York
“To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” — First line of the Constitution of the State of Georgia
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” — First line of the Declaration of Independence
Need I go on?
minor correction
one small correction to my above post. The misstated the source of my last quote. That was from the Jefferson’s original rough draft of the Declaration of Independence. The ratified document, however, is matterially the same.
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult…
Well it was George who said it, so if anythign you’d be refuting him. Secondly, “God” does not equal Christianity. There are many religions that believe in “God”. So your point of using those lines as your basis for argument are completely invalid. There is no way for you to know whether or not Thomas Jefferson was a closet Muslim 🙂
You may choose to stay clear of it, but the government may not force them out.
I’m a law student, so this sort of thing tends to get my attention. I’m also studying the First Amendment now — we just started on the religion clauses. The topic is still new to me, but I have a few things to say. I don’t know all the details yet, though.
As an individual, one is free to choose to avoid certain practices and to choose not to associate with those who participate in certain practices (though the government may sometimes, for compelling reasons, forbid certain kinds of discriminatory practices in, among other things, housing or employment).
However, both the speech and the religion clauses of the First Amendment forbid any level of the government from interfering with religious practice, and it prevents the government from favoring one religious practice over another. The government is not permitted to hinder other belief systems while favoring Christianity.
Now, not all practices can be protected simply by saying “it’s religious.” To take an extreme example, religious killing would not be exempt from murder statutes. For example, the government may criminalize the consumption of peyote even though it has been part of Native American religious ceremonies. I haven’t read the case yet, but my guess is that the medical proof of the dangers of peyote give the government a compelling reason to criminalize it, and they’re not criminalizing it because of anyone’s religion. They’re not attacking a belief.
The government, however, may not attack a religious belief, and we see that happening in the Louisiana case.
Although “religion” is difficult to define, First Amendment jurisprudence treats “religion” as a much broader word than “Christianity,” “Judeo-Christian theism,” or even “theism.” It includes belief systems such as Buddhism and Taoism which recognize no deity. To interpret it more narrowly would make the religion clauses meaningless — they’d only apply to Christianity, and there’s no question that the free exercise and non-establishment provisions apply much more broadly.
In this case, there’s another problem and another reason any prosecution should fail: even if the government could legitimately outlaw fortunetelling (it probably can’t, because of first amendment speech protection), it’s pretty clear that the government is trying to enforce this archaic law because they don’t like the witches. I believe that would constitute a bad motive under the constitutional law — discriminatory enforcement against a group of people for what they believe.
You are free to dislike and even fear those who believe and practice forms of Wicca. But no body of municipal, state, or federal government can interfere with the belief, and they can’t interfere with practices without a compelling reason (e.g. preventing the use of a dangerous drug, or outlawing bigamy or polygamy, or preventing physical abuse). The dislike or fear of a group’s beliefs is never a compelling reason – in fact, it weighs directly in the other direction, as it reeks of exactly the sort of discrimination which the Amendment is designed to prevent.
That’s how I understand the law right now. My point, I guess, is just what I said at the beginning: you can dislike it, but you can’t get the government to forbid it, nor can you use government power to try to restrict it.
(Louisiana, I might note, is renowned for having some of the most archaic, backwards laws in the nation.)
Re: You may choose to stay clear of it, but the government may not force them out.
I enjoyed your input. Very nicely written and very nicely put. Thank you.
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult, I don’t want anything to do with it.
Occult : Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena.
Your beliefs and your religion fall into this category. Why are you so afraid of words like this? Because your church says they are bad words? They aren’t. Do you just believe every single thing your church stuffs down your throat? Do they teach you that Mormons think the moon is made of cheese too? I’m more afraid of you and your beliefs than any witch.
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult, I don’t want anything to do with it.
It is not that I fear that my religion is called Occultist it is that the Jesus freaks use the world in their rantings to whip up fear amongst the lemming herds during elections and other times when things happen (shootings.etc)
I.E. columbine to get people aligned against any religion that does not go with the Christian religion.
This is what people are worried about. First it starts with this word. Then speeches . And eventually you get to the point that Nazi germany got to —-total sensorship of anything or anyone that did not tow the line that they wanted…..We are about 1/2 way there now 🙁
beloth
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult, I don’t want anything to do with it.
yeah like they would want to be near your close minded self either 🙁
beloth
GO SATAN!!!!! 🙂
Re: If it has to do anything with the occult, I don’t want anything to do with it.
The thing is, Pagans and Wiccans don’t necessarily stand for everything Christians are against… . First off, finishing any sentence that begins “Pagans all….” or “Pagans are….” is a pretty tricky challenge if you want to speak the truth. There are few, if any, things that “all” Pagans agree on. You can’t even say that Pagans are all non-Christian, as there are people who combine Christian faith with Paganism. I’m not necessarily sure I understand how they do it, but they do.
You’ll find Pagans in every sector of the political spectrum, from right-wing ultra conservative to left-wing liberal radicals. You’ll find Pagans that are pro-life and those that are pro-choice; those who believe in gun control and those who vehemently don’t; those who think homosexuality is an abomination, and those who think its just another natural variation. You’ll find everything you find in any other large segment of the population.
Just because we don’t follow the Christian religion, it doesn’t follow that we are ‘against’ everything Christians are for or think would be good. Besides, what exactly is it that Christians, as a whole, want? Hard to say, really – they are just as widely varied in their political views as we are.
When it comes down to it, though, the bottom line is this. If you can’t support the idea that Pagans have the same exact rights to live, work, attend school, gather, worship, have a home, be an active part of the community, and so on, in peace and without being harassed, you can’t expect to hold on to your own rights, either. There’s no clear “line” of where it would stop. Repression of one is repression of all.
If you ever find yourself thinking “Those Pagans have to get out of MY town” or “We don’t want their kind here”, ask yourself this – how would you react if the person being spoken about was you and the faith in question was your own — because it can happen, if we don’t stand firm for everyone.
hmmm…
whatever happened to “Thou shalt not judge…”???
Re: hmmm…
>whatever happened to “Thou shalt not judge…”???
Nothing, it’s just commonly taken out of context and misused. Nowhere does Christianity say we can’t make any judgements of character, etc. Just that we don’t condemn anyone. That means we don’t decide who is a good person or bad person, just what actions, events, groups of people we don’t want to associate with.
On the contrary, if a person thoretically existed who could not make judements about character, or a group of people, it would be anarchy. I could kill my coworker, and that would be okay, because I can’t judge what I do, or my boss can’t judge what I do. As a matter of fact, society would not be able to exist, because we couldn’t cooperate, because after all, I can’t judge what is right for my neighbor to do or to ask you to my neighbor, or how to expect them to behave.
Just my attempt to clear up a misconception about Christian beliefs. 🙂
actually
maybe you should take a two week vacation from the site while you wait for dsl. i’m sure you could use the time creativly decking out your new pad.
though we’d miss the fun.
Re: actually
i would probably go insane. my site is a vaction for the stresses of life. it is my journal and photo album. skiping two weeks is like forgeting a busy imprtant 2 weeks in my life.
Re: actually
Sorry to bring debate here then. If I say anything further about the current topic, I’ll refer people to my own journal for replies, debates, etc.
After all, It’s not relaxing to most people to have thier stress-relief place turned into a battlegournd of ideas. 🙂
Hope all is well! God bless!
Re: actually
sokay – i’ve found the whole thread rather interesting. i enjoy learning about the different ways people think. i have friends all across the religion spectrum so it is always benificial to learn more about each one and how they react to stories like this…
thanks for not wanting to start a war here though 🙂
Re: actually
okey dokey, never mind, can’t have you going insane, your already nuts as is.
Pssst… sillyhead!
You can put a temp thing on one of our servers for free. We can een give you a cool subdomain to use like stefunee.cambitch.com..or something 🙂 at any of our domaisn actually (we have like 30 or something so I can send you a list if you want). But there’s no reason to pay for it crazy!