Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Who belittled Kfir's Jewish beliefs?

Posted By: ??? on 2006-08-18
In Reply to: I got that from how they treated Kfir - from one particular post

I might be missing something here but I can't find posts by Kfir discussing her Jewish faith. It was all about the war. It was about the state of Israel not about the Jewish religion. Isn't that 2 different things?

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Any group that insists its beliefs are the only true beliefs,
works actively to force those beliefs on me, have reduced sex to "expression" and the more partners the better, needs to control their reproductive organs a little bit better, not my enemies either, but their way is not the only way...hellooo democracy...it's part of your name isn't it?

As to Jehovah's Witnesses, I take their booklet, thank them kindly, and throw it in the trash.

No one is forcing anything on you.

I got that from how they treated Kfir
Kfir was drug through the mud for his his or her Jewish beliefs. People who believe that what is happening in the Middle East is a fulfillment of prophecy have been laughed at. More than one person have expressed their offense at this.

You can disagree with someone without belittling their faith or laughing them.

I feel these questions could have been best answered by Kfir. sm

Frankly, I am not sure how much more evidence you need after the article I posted on the Conservative board regarding Mike Wallace's interview with Iran's president. You made allegations that Christians are only now interested in Israel because we see *the end* coming. That just isn't so. But you state it as fact, not as a personal opinion. Maybe that is where the disconnect lies, that what you perceive has become fact to you. As far as personal attacks, I haven't attacked you. You have to admit, though, that your question to Kfir about why the Israeli army did not fight in Iraq was kind of startling in light of what happened in the Gulf war and in light of the hatred between Israeli and Arab. I would love to debate you, but I don't think we would be debating so much as defending our own belief system. Again, I say this respectfully and this is based on reading your posts here. Your aggression towards Kfir and his defense of his country is puzzling to me. Yet you felt the one attacked. There is just too much emotion here. This milieu is just not conducive to logical debate. People say things they would not ordinarily say in person. I thought the remark you make to Kfir about him not being representative of most Israeli was offensive. I do, believe this conversation has become way too personal, on all levels.

Yeah and Kfir is understandably emotional too...sm
His very first post here was full of name calling. In fact, I called him on it. You can't really expect too much after that, though, as I said before I 'm shying away from this debate because of mixed feelings.

There's an old Jewish saying. TI
Prepare yourself with truth before you argue. You speak about debate, but I haven't seen any real debate here. A lot of hysteria. A lot of disinformation. No debate. Israel is not an ally because we haven't sent troops to Iraq. When I finished laughing about that, I had to be disturbed from the lack of real knowledge among you. You get all your facts from news sources, I am guessing most of them partisan. I am not only speaking to you but to other posters here. You give yourselves names like Liberal and Democrat and you speak from political points and not humanity. There is no humanity in your words. You have no idea what goes on in Israel. Unless you are there or have lived and breathed there, or know what the struggles are from minute to minute, you know only what you read. That is the truth. My Jooish friends and I won't bother to educate you. You already know everything and my time here is wasted. It's a big contest about who can paste here articles they find that say what they want. Whether they be true or no. Les enfants israeliens meurent aussi.

I didn't say because you were Jewish
I said it's not right to think that Christianity should be taken out of everything just because you don't agree.

And you did say that you are getting "Christian things shoved down your throat" everywhere. Usually when you say something is shoved down your throat it means you take offense to it.

I have a serious question to ask you though - do you not believe in Jesus? If not, what is the reasoning as far as you are concerned for getting into heaven? I mean what are the requirements from a Jewish point of view? I'm asking this in all honesty, not sarcastically or anything like that.

Not all Jewish grandparents think the way you do
@@

Republican Jewish Ad

What's with all this hating of the Jews, anyway? Sickening!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq9u3GRa97w

So, gt, are YOU the Jewish expert on this board. sm
So what are your thoughts on Gaza and it's historical and Biblical significance? Do you think Egypt will encroach upon the left bank? How about Hamas and their recent aggressive actions. Do you think they will rebuilt Gaza? What do you think about the relocation of the Gaza settlers? What is the significance of losing Gaza? Do you think the Arabs will uphold their part of the peace agreement, and if so, why? Don't you think Sharon is doomed as far as ever being reelected. Netinyahu is pretty steamed as are most Israeli. Do you think they should vote him back in? Tell us your thoughts.

Jewish Voices For Peace
Not all jews agree with this latest Israeli/Bush aggression, myself included. Check out the web site Jewish Voices For Peace.Org.

Jewish Voice For Peace
It is Jewish Voice For Peace.Org, not Jewish Voices For Peace as I previously posted. Sorry.

try this Republican Jewish Coalition

Not sure why it didn't show up. When I clicked on it here, it worked.

http://www.rjchq.org/Multimedia/multimediadetail.aspx?id=0c46d45c-b77a-47de-ac9c-b618e36b39b8

I also just googled RJC, so this is another alternative. Look for the "see our new tv ad." ...and much more. I'm glad I signed up for it.

Republican Jewish Coalition

Obama pressures Philly area synagogue to drop RJC Rrepresentative from a ... The RJC has launched a new series of ads raising critical issues for the Jewish ...
www.rjchq.org/ - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Chapters

Palin Disinvited from anti-Iran ...

Video

RJC Congratulates Palin on ...

Replace Republican with Jewish and think...
Germany. Do you really hate a group of people that much? Really?? That you want to go down the marxist path of quashing or belitting any kind of dissent or disagreement? I thought liberals were all about the right to dissent! Oh...what on earth am I thinking? They are for THEIR right to dissent and dam* anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Does really need to be said that Israel is predominantly Jewish?

When I speak of Israel, I speak of the Jews.

You Said: "And yes, I did bring Hitler into the conversation. He systematically tied to wipe out a group of people, which is exactly what Israel is doing right now."

That statement is exactly what makes you anti-Semitic. The fact that you can compare Israel to Nazi Germany is obscene and anti-Semitic. You are using something horrific done to the Jews (who make up 75% or more of the Israeli population) and using it to illustrate what you perceive is going on in the Gaza Strip. Can you not find some other means to make your point other than conjuring up prejudice perpetrated by Hitler? Could you have maybe made your comparison to Kosovo/Bosnia? Nope, you chose the holocaust to illustrate your point. You intent was to shock and to be controversial. You wanted to provoke a reaction.

What exactly did you think using the name "Hitler" would provoke? You argument in and of itself is anti-Semitic.

By the way, I am a messianic Jew. I know a little bit about anti-Semitism. So before you continue to insult both my intelligence and my homeland, choose your words wisely.

I was quoting from a Jewish website publication.
It wasn't "my statement." And it made perfect sense if you had read the article. The Gaza strip pull-out was not instigated by the settlers who were moved but by their government which is ISRAELI and is therefore JEWISH. You should read the news a little more.

Arresting officer, who is Jewish, took no offense. sm

He pretty much said what I did below.

Arresting Deputy Didn�t Want To �Defame� Gibson

�I don�t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson� says officer, who is Jewish

MSNBC
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:56 p.m. PT July 31, 2006

Excerpt:

CALABASAS, Calif. - The deputy who arrested Mel Gibson on suspicion of drunken driving said Monday that he feels bad for damage to the star�s reputation but hopes Gibson thinks twice before drinking and getting behind the wheel.

James Mee, a Los Angeles County sheriff�s deputy, told the Associated Press that he considered it a routine arrest and didn�t take seriously any comments that Gibson made.

Gibson reportedly unleashed an anti-Semitic tirade and made other offensive comments when he was pulled over, initially for speeding, early Friday along the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. He was then arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Gibson has issued a public apology for his conduct without specifying what he said or did.

�I don�t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson,� said Mee, a 17-year deputy who is Jewish. �What I had hoped out of this is that he would think twice before he gets behind the wheel of a car and was drinking. ... I don�t want to ruin his career. I don�t want to defame him in any way or hurt him.�

*snip*

TMZ reported that Gibson said, �The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,� and asked the arresting officer, �Are you a Jew?�

In the interview outside his home, Mee would not comment specifically on what Gibson said.

�That stuff is booze talking,� the deputy said. �There�s two things that booze does. It amplifies your basic personality. If you are a laid-back kind of person, just an easygoing kind of person, booze is going to amplify that and you�ll be just sitting around going how it�s a wonderful day.

Linked to a Jewish blog? I assume someone from sm
the conservative board did that. I am opposed to war and weep for all victims of war. My criticism is aimed at the state-nations responsible for them, including my own.

If you're Jewish why are you posting in French instead of Hebrew?

Les enfants israeliens meurent aussi.

And yes, Israeli children die, as well. But many more Lebanese children died at your hands.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N15364953.htm

Citing U.N. statistics, the IMC said more than 300 children were killed in Lebanon and 1,000 wounded while a further half million youngsters were displaced by battles between Hizbollah guerrillas and Israeli forces in southern Lebanon.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry names eight Israeli children killed by Hizbollah rockets, including two 18-year olds. The total Israeli death toll is estimated at more than 150. It is unclear how many Israeli children were wounded.

Do you agree with this analysis of Jewish abortion stance? sm
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:

The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.

Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.

With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.

"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5

Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes."

Christian beliefs. sm
Then, I suppose my next question would be, why do posters who do not agree with how boards are handled and who do not agree with the political spirit continue to come here? And my second question would be why, with two boards, posters could not have maintained their thoughts to those boards. Objectively, I believe that is why TWO boards were set up. The people you seem to have the biggest problem with made a pact not to come here. They kept that pact. By the way, I see sickness of spirit on both sides. There were occasions on the other board when posters were were wished death and to burn in hell. Would you fight back against that? Personally, I would have left then. Both of these boards are a mess. And it solves nothing to sit here and talk about posters who will no longer be here. Move on.

I am not pushing my beliefs on you...
I am merely standing for what I believe in, just as you do. You seem defensive, and when people are defensive, that generally means they feel guilty. If you believe in a woman's right to choose to abort a child, that is your right, and you do not need me to endorse that. Just as I do not need you to endorse my feeling that life does begin at conception, I believe the soul begins at the same time. I do not believe a child growing in the womb is soul-less. We agree to disagree.

This is where our beliefs differ...sm
*...and we need to support our country's efforts in Iraq and support the men and women who are there trying to keep just this thing from happening.*

Your Rush Limbaugh cup runneth over. Sure anything can happen in America, but it is ridiculous to believe that us pulling out of Iraq is going to be our death certificate. That somehow we will just lie down and surrender the USA to Arabs.

where our beliefs differ....
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis (unlike some liberals, I am fully capable of forming an opinion without the help of others), and the opinion I stated is my own. Ever heard the old saying the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step...? Well, every time we pull out of somewhere or ignore an opportunity (like Bill Clinton did out of Somalia, like Bill Clinton did in NONreponse to HOW many terrorist attacks during his presidency) we lay the groundwork for defeat. What makes you think that the same waffling liberals now won't be the same waffling liberals who run to Canada or anywhere else they can if we are attacked here? Tell me, Democrat, why should I believe you or put faith in your party who want to run yet again, to NOT to just lie down and surrender the USA to terrorists? Please tell me how I can have confidence in that? Because you SAY you will?? You need to understand these people...every weakness you show empowers them. They would see us pulling out now as a great victory. Maybe YOU want to give them that. I DO NOT.

False beliefs
On the flip side, what good will the war do us when we lose our house, our jobs, can no longer afford the food in the stores, can't buy gas to get to work (if you still have a job), you and your family now have to find a campground or shelter to live at (or worse) and the banks close and now you can't get any of your money out that you may have in there (this has already happened somewhere - would have to research again to find the exact location but its here in the US). This is exactly the scare tactics/agenda McCain is trying to push (gotta keep up the war, keep up the war, everyone is the enemy, lets keep it going for 100 years) - give me a break! They are trying to get enough people to be afraid (which is in itself a form of terrorism) that we are going to be attacked again. You know what...get our troops home and we will have more troops to protect our borders and increase security here in the US) Well first the economy is the most important issue (at least to me), unless of course you plan to pack up your stuff and go join the service and fight over there. If the economy collapses where are you going to be. How bout your parents/grandparents who cannot just pick up so easily and move to another area. McCain keeps pushing the war issue because he has no clue about the economy. He doesn't even remain consistent with his issue on gay marriage. My feeling is I don't care if George & John down the street or Mary & Sue down the road want to get married - that will not effect my day-to-day life however the economy does, my job does, eating and paying bills does affect me each day. McCain was at a meeting and he said he was for gay marriage, then 11 minutes later he said he was not for gay marriage. He's too old and out of touch with reality. Do you really want someone with his temper ready to hit the launch button in in whim? He is not a stable man (in my opinion).

Christian beliefs

The Lord's Prayer:
...Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven....

This is a Christian prayer, for those of you who are unfamiliar. There is nothing radical about what she is saying. She is a faithful Christian woman.

OP said not to force beliefs on others...
if you don't want to read religious toned posts, don't open them.

We know your beliefs....... O lover
If you're not an O lover, then one must be pyschotic. At least they're not led by a nose ring.

Exactly and that's the basis for my beliefs. n/m
x

Sorry you have no religious beliefs....... that is sad!
--

Though I think this is more beliefs than political . . .
I would never want to be kept alive like that. Would you? I have voiced this to my whole family, and they are well aware that when God tells me it is time to go, they need to let me go. I would much rather starve to death than be kept here on earth miserable in my own flesh.

Jewish family flees Delaware school district's aggressive Christianity

This is terrible. :-(

Jewish family flees Delaware school district's aggressive Christianity

by JewsOnFirst.org, June 28, 2006

Note: On July 11th, we posted two follow-up reports, which you can find here. And on August 23rd, we posted another update here.

Links to articles and documents cited in our report appear immediately below it

A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they're suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from state-sponsored religion.

The behavior of the Indian River School District board suggests the families' fears are hardly groundless.

The district spreads over a considerable portion of southern Delaware. The families' complaint, filed in federal court in February 2005, alleges that the district had created an environment of religious exclusion and unconstitutional state-sponsored religion.

Among numerous specific examples in the complaint was what happened at plaintiff Samantha Dobrich's graduation in 2004 from the district's high school. She was the only Jewish student in her graduating class. The complaint relates that local pastor, Jerry Fike, in his invocation, followed requests for our heavenly Father's guidance for the graduates with:

I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus' name.

In addition to the ruined graduation experience, the Dobrich-Doe lawsuit alleges that:

The district's custom and practice of school-sponsored prayer was frequently imposed on impressionable non-Christian students, which violated their constitutional rights.
The district ignored the Supreme Court's 1992 Lee decision limiting prayer at graduation ceremonies -- even after a district employee complained about the prayer at her child's 2003 graduation..
District teachers and staff led Bible clubs at several schools. Club members got to go to the head of the lunch line.
While Bible clubs were widely available, student book clubs were rare and often canceled by the district.
When Jane Doe complained that her non-Christian son Jordan Doe was left alone when his classmates when to Bible club meetings, district staff insisted that Jordan should attend the club, regardless of his religion.
The district schools attended by Jordan and his sister Jamie Doe distributed Bibles to students in 2003, giving them time off from class to pick up the books.
Prayer --often sectarian -- is a routine part of district sports programs and social events
One of the district's middle schools gave students the choice of attending a special Bible Club if they did not want to attend a lesson on evolution.
A middle school teacher told students there was only one true religion and gave them pamphlets for his surfing ministry.
Samantha Dobrich's honors English teacher frequently discussed Christianity, but no other religion.
Students frequently made mandatory appearances at district board meetings -- where they were a captive audience for board members' prayers to Jesus.

The Dobriches said the prayers to Jesus' ruined the graduation experience for Samantha. Mona Dobrich, Samantha's mother, repeatedly called district officials to complain. A board member told her she would have to get the matter put on a meeting agenda -- then refused to put it on the agenda. The school superintendent slipped the topic onto the agenda and then told Mona Dobrich she would need to raise it during the public comment period.

School board unyielding
The board opened the June 15, 2004 meeting at which Dobrich was prepared to speak with a prayer in Jesus' name. The board was not forthcoming to her request that official prayers be in God's name rather than in Jesus' name. The high school athletic director veered from his agenda topic to encourage the board to keep praying in Jesus' name.

Board member Donald Hattier followed Dobrich out and offered to compromise by keeping graduation free of prayers to Jesus. And, according to the complaint, he warned her not to hire a lawyer.

A large crowd turned out for the next board meeting and many people spoke in support of school prayer. Mona Dobrich spoke passionately of her own outsider experience as a student in Indian River District schools and of how hard she'd worked to make sure her children didn't also feel like outsiders.

Hattier again approached her after the meeting. This time, the complaint alleges, he told her he'd spoken with the Rutherford Institute, a religious right legal group.

Talk show calls out a mob
The district board announced the formation of a committee to develop a religion policy. And the local talk radio station inflamed the issue.

On the evening in August 2004 when the board was to announce its new policy, hundreds of people turned out for the meetng. The Dobrich family and Jane Doe felt intimidated and asked a state trooper to escort them.

The complaint recounts that the raucous crowd applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him: take your yarmulke off! His statement, read by Samantha, confided I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy.

A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that the people would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating god and state.

A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might disappear like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. O'Hair disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.

The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to go back up north.

In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby.

Killing Christ
Classmates accused Alex Dobrich of killing Christ and he became fearful about wearing his yarmulke, the complaint recounts. He took it off whenever he saw a police officer, fearing that the officer might see it and pull over his mother's car. When the family went grocery shopping, the complaint says, Alexander would remove the pin holding his yarmulke on his head for fear that someone would grab it and rip out some of his hair.

The Dobriches refinanced their home so that Mona and Alexander could move to Wilmington, away from a situation that had become untenable, according to the complaint; Marco stayed behind because of his job, .

Ultimately, it continues, the expense of two households forced the Dobriches to sell their home. And Samantha was forced to withdraw from the joint program she attended at Columbia University and the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. She is being treated for depression.

The lawsuit states that the Doe family wants to remain anonymous in order to avoid the retaliation experienced by the Dobrich family. Jordan and Jane Doe are also suffering from depression related to their opposition with the Indian River School District's religion policy.

Elusive religion policy
Even after Mona and Alexander Dobrich moved to Wilmington, the family and its lawyers continued to request the district's policy on religion in the schools and to ask for meetings with the board. Their requests were stonewalled, so in February 2005 they filed suit.

In a statement issued through her attorneys and quoted by the Delaware Wave, Mona Dobrichexplained why the families were suing: We are not trying to remove God from the schools or the public square. We simply don't think it is right for the district to impose a particular religious view on impressionable students.

The families seek to recover damages and to compel changes in the school district's policy.

That policy, however, remains elusive.

At the request of a board member soon after the infamous graduation, the Rutherford Institute, prepared a prayer policy for the school board, according to the complaint. In October 2004 the board reportedly adopted a new policy on religion in response to the Dobrich's complaint.

It is unclear if that policy is the one prepared by the Rutherford Institute -- because no one has seen it. The Dobrich's complaint states that the policy was unavailable and when the families requested it the district told them to file a freedom of information request.

This June, the board had a reading of a proposed change in the unseen policy. They said the policy and its changes would be posted on their website, (www.irsd.net) but on June 27th, it was nowhere to be found among several dozen policy documents.

The Rutherford Institute enters the fray
At the boisterous August 2004 district board meeting, the head of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, urged the board to set an example for other schools, according to the Daily Times, a local paper.

A Rutherford affiliated lawyer, Thomas Neuberger, came into the case representing one of the school board members. Before he left the case last August (because the judge dismissed the individual board members from the case), Neuberger was reportedly feuding with other lawyers.

While he was in the case, his client, Reginald L. Helms reportedly admitted one of the lawsuit's allegations: that school officials invited Pastor Fike to the 2004 graduation. That undermined the district's claim that students chose the speakers.

Neuberger was quoted by the Delaware Wave newspaper denying that the Dobrich's son Alex was taunted as a Jew by classmates. I seriously doubt that it ever occurred, he told the paper, contending that the plaintiffs were using the allegation used to defame the good citizens who serve on this school board.

In its response to the lawsuit, the district reportedly called some of the families' claims immaterial, impertinent and scandalous, and intended only to cast the district in a negative light.

Settlement rejected
In February 2006, the board unanimously rejected a settlement offer that would have required renaming Christmas and Easter breaks to winter and spring, respectively, and to put a Dobrich child at the top of a waiting list for an arts school. It would have permitted board members to continue praying at their meetings. (US District Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., who is hearing the case, ruled last year that the prayer was a historic tradition and could continue.)

In April the board's insurance company, which had been representing the district in the lawsuit, filed suit against it (and the individual board members) because they had, against its advice, rejected the settlement offer. The board then fired the attorneys that had been representing them and hired a new set. The insurance company is reportedly refusing to pay for the board's legal defense from the date the members rejected the settlement offer.

According to the Coastal Point, the insurance company's complaint is sealed, as is the district's response. The district's taxpayers, who will pay the bill if the insurer prevails, cannot know the details of the case.

Attorney Thomas Allingham, who represents the Dobrich family in their case against the school district, says the board's behavior suggests it was not negotiating in good faith. Allingham told JewsOnFirst that several board members attended the settlement negotiations, which were under the auspices of a federal mediator. He said the members approved the settlement during those negotiations. But, when the board voted on the offer, they rejected it unanimously.

Allingham said the plaintiffs remained open to the possibility that the case could be settled. But the case is set for trial in June 2007 in Wilmington.

Board prayer allowed with settlement

By Jonathan Starkey, Coastal Point (Sussex County, Delaware), June 16, 2006

A settlement offered by the plaintiffs in the Dobrich/Doe prayer suit and denied unanimously by the Indian River School board on Feb. 27 would have allowed board members to continue opening monthly meetings with a prayer, a board member and two other sources close to the case told the Coastal Point. Click here for the report (a PDF file).

School board to discuss religion policy

By Jonathan Starkey, Coastal Point (Sussex County, Delaware), June 23, 2006

The policies regarding prayer at graduations and religion in school that were adopted by the Indian River School Board on Oct. 19, 2004, after they heard complaints from a Jewish family, might be amended next week.

The board held a first reading on the amended ordinances Tuesday but deferred a vote until after an executive session on Tuesday, June 27. Board members and district Superintendent Lois Hobbs wouldn�t comment on the specifics of the proposed amendments. Click here for the report (a PDF file).

School prayer lawsuit filed against district

By Sean O'Sullivan, Gannett News Service, Delaware Wave, March 2, 2005

Two sets of parents filed a federal lawsuit in Wilmington on Monday that seeks to bar the Indian River School District from promoting religion at school functions.

The parents, who also are seeking damages, claim in the lawsuit that their rights to free speech and to be free from state-sponsored religion have been violated.

We didn't want a lawsuit, but at this point we feel like we don't have any other choice, said Mona Dobrich, one of the parents, in a statement provided by attorney Thomas J. Allingham. We are not trying to remove God from the schools or the public square. We simply don't think it is right for the district to impose a particular religious view on impressionable students. Continue

School district disputes lawsuit

By Sean O'Sullivan, Gannett News Service, Delaware Wave, May 4, 2005

WILMINGTON -- Indian River school officials have filed papers in federal court denying virtually every claim in a Jewish family's lawsuit over school-sponsored Christian prayer.

John Balaguer, attorney for the school district, also asked a U.S. District judge to strike large sections of the complaint as immaterial, impertinent and scandalous.

Balaguer said the items were included solely to cast the district in a negative light. Continue

ACLU Sues to Stop School Board Prayer: Dobrich v. Walls

Rutherford Institute website entry on the Dobrich case.

JOF note: the ACLU is not involved in the case!

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss a lawsuit recently filed by the ACLU against Reginald Helms in his official capacity as a member of the Indian River School District Board of Education. The lawsuit, which was filed by the ACLU in February 2005 against school board members in their personal and professional capacities, alleges that school- sponsored prayer �has pervaded the life of teachers and students� in the Indian River District schools. In their motion to have the case dismissed, Institute attorneys argue that as a school board member, Helms should have immunity from liability claims under the established doctrine of absolute legislative immunity.

An official with the Indian River School District Board of Education contacted The Rutherford Institute for help in August 2004, after the Wilmington, Del., branch of the ACLU demanded that IRSD board members stop opening their monthly business meetings with a prayer. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute agreed to represent Reginald Helms, vice president of the IRSD Board of Education, in his individual capacity should the Delaware school district�s practice of opening meetings with a brief prayer be challenged. Despite pressure from the Wilmington chapter of the ACLU to cease issuing prayers at public events, officials with the IRSD opened a school board meeting on Aug. 24, 2004, with a brief invocation. Several hundred members of the community gathered at Frankford Elementary School for the monthly business meeting broke into applause after Board President Harvey Walls asked board member Dr. Donald G. Hattier to lead the board in a word of prayer. Hattier read a prayer given by George Washington during the Revolutionary War. During the business meeting, the board also issued a first reading of a policy concerning school prayer at baccalaureate and commencement ceremonies, which states that student-initiated, student-delivered, voluntary messages may be permitted during graduation ceremonies. Thomas Neuberger, a Rutherford affiliate attorney with the Neuberger Firm, which is based in Wilmington, Del., is defending school board member Reginald Helms against the ACLU�s lawsuit. (link)

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Not at all. I was summing up Chomsky's beliefs. sm
In direct response to your remark about the quotes I posted.

An example - UW professor still under attack for beliefs.sm
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=90930&ntpid=1

Religious beliefs are not the issue here...
We were discussing the law...the phrase concerning Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is actually in the Declaration of Independence, and does not mention "citizens" at all. Regardless of your religion or lack thereof, I'm not aware of any nation in which murder or the taking of a human life is not outlawed.

As far as the ultimate decision resting with God, of course all decisions ultimately rest with God. But does that mean we should not govern ourselves or our behavior while we are here on this earth? Of course not. Laws protect the innocent - few are as innocent as an unborn child. It never ceases to amaze me that people can condone the killing of unborn babies, but are horrified if someone kills one that is 3 days old...or leaves one in a dumpster shortly after birth...or on the doorsteps of a church. I think it has been drilled into our heads for so long that this is a choice for women and our RIGHT that we actually never step back and think about the fact that we are talking about killing babies. If someone were to propose a law that men...simply because they were men...had the right to, oh, kill 3 year olds, people would laugh their heads off at the absurdity of it. Yet that is exactly what we are doing - giving women the right to kill their own children, simply because they are women and the child is in their body. Why not give the fathers the right to abort the child? After all, it is half theirs? Again, an absurd notion. But because we are women and the children grow in our bodies, we have the right to kill them? I'm sorry, I can never understand the justification for this. There are alternatives. There are choices. Choosing to kill the child should not be an option. In what other situation is it acceptable to kill another human being as a viable choice? I can think of only one - self-preservation. Self defense. So I supposed under the law, if the unborn child is killing you, you should probably be able to protect yourself. I would have to agree with that argument, but sadly, that is rarely the reason for an abortion.

not questioning your ideas or beliefs -
I am just wondering how is that? Are you and your husband both American? I am just being nosy and I guess you don't have to answer me if you don't want to... just curious how that happened or how it works and if it was something you chose.

Polygamy isn't just religious beliefs
There are others, such as "swingers" who engage in group sex. Who's not to say that they wouldn't start to fight for the right to marry, even if only for the massive tax break they would get?

No, it's not a human right.....contrary to your beliefs
marriage is supposed to be a gift from God for those that actually understand what that means in the first place. No where in the Bible does it talk about 2 men or 2 women having a relationship as blessed by God, but it sure tells us it is WRONG!

How do you manage to be so screwed up that you don't know the difference between homosexuality and difference in color of skin? Last time I checked, blacks go to school with whites and have for a long time, at least they do in my community.... blacks have every right whites have..... homosexuals have every right we ALL have.

I personally feel that our beliefs

of right vs wrong come from our own personal upbringing. I was raised in a very strict family. My mom attended church every Sunday and took us three kids with her. Dad smoked and swore and refused to go to church on Sunday because he didn't want to be a hypocrit because he wasn't going to give up his cigarettes, etc. My dad believed in God, but he just didn't want to be one of the people in the pews on Sunday talking about how great of a Christian he was when he knew he was going to walk outside and light up a cigarette.

My husband is an atheist. He believes in evolution and says that he doesn't need a higher power or supreme being to tell him what is right and what is wrong. However, he has no problem with his two boys going to church because he feels the morals that are taught at church are good for the boys. If they believe in God, he has no problem with that. If they decided not to, he has no problem with that. I don't push religion on my husband and he doesn't push his beliefs or lack thereof on me either and we've been happily married for 8 years now with two wonder boys and another baby on the way.

I feel that rules do change with time. We no longer stone people who commit adultry. We don't cut hands off of people who steal. We don't kick people out of our communities for being "unclean" even though there are a few I'd like to kick out. LOL! I don't see anyone sacrificing virgins or children either.

I feel that right and wrong should be based upon what is best for the majority of people and not small minority groups. We are never going to do everything that makes everyone happy, but we have to do what is best for a majority of people.

They stop trying to push YOUR beliefs on
--

No matter how long ago it was, Ayers still has the same beliefs sm
He has shown that by not apologizing, but even saying right after 09/11 in 2001 saying that he still didn't feel they had done enough and wished they had done more. People died in those bombings. He was and is a terrorist right here in homeland. He has posed in recent years with himself standing on top of a crumpled American flag - and yet we buy Obama's excuses as to why he won't acknowledge respect of our flag? You really think those two things are not related? That Obama on national television is in essence giving a "wink and a nod" to his cohorts? It screams obvious. And now all the voter fraud with Acorn, and I guess Obama is just coincidentally involved with them too?

Stay out of my bedroom, my beliefs and my uterus first of all.
Then, provide a sound infrastructure (low crime rate, low poverty rate) with my hard earned and eagerly paid taxes with is all a citizen can do for his country besides obeying the laws and living the Golden Rule.

"Muslim is wrong?" "I don't judge anybody or their beliefs?"
explaining away the conflict in this statement TO YOURSELF before you take it upon yourself to explain it to others.

Emanuel had beliefs that align with both parties.
he is not necessarily a president's top advisor.

Rahm Emanuel supported Bush on Iraq from the get go. "Lefties" NEVER did...not for a single moment. His poolitical views align with the Democratic Leadership Council, the core belief of which is that the party should shift itself away traditional populist positions and toward the more "third way" centrist views. It has been called the "republican wing" of the democratic party by progressives and the left of centers. His views on Israel are decidedly republican and are more extreme than even the shrub.

Having said that, the chief of staff is not primarily and advisory position. In fact, the nature of the position is primarily defined by the president himself, and the chief of staff can operate only within the parameters that his president allows. JFK did not even have a COS. Obama has not indicated one way or the other how he views his relationship with the COS or how much he will or will not rely on him for advice.

For every single other aspect of those job responsibilities, Rahm Emanuel is undeniable strongly qualified by his experience. The president's chief of staff first and foremost must be trusted by the President, perhaps more than any other person in his cabinet or ministry. I would say the most important qualification for that job is that of impeccable discretion. We have no evidence to indicate that Rahm Emanuel does not posses that trait.

I don't understand...you are saying Hitler's beliefs are factual and sane?
I am very puzzled. When challenged on your historical knowledge, you cite Hitler as a source for your information? Remember, he also planned to exterminate the Poles and all Catholics eventually. I don't think the reasons he cites for hating the Jews are really the basis for any historical reality. He was, after all, one the greatest propagandists.

You're right, I cannot change your beliefs, not directed solely at you (sm)
But at anyone who supports partial birth abortion really. It is just an overwhelmingly horrible thought to me.