New York schools and their judges put into the lime light

Appeals court bars Nativity at schools

Feb 4, 2006

A divided federal appeals-court panel ruled New York City schools can ban the display of the Christian Nativity during Christmas while permitting a Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan.

The Thomas More Law Center, which brought the case on behalf of Andrea Skoros and her two elementary school children, called the 2-1 decision Thursday by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan "another outrageous example of federal courts discriminating against Christians."

"Many federal courts are using the contrived endorsement test to cleanse America of Christianity," said Richard Thompson, the center's president and chief counsel. "This unprincipled test allows judges to impose their ideological views under the pretext of constitutional interpretation."

Article. VII of the United States Constitution

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven {that year signifies only one possible Lord for this Constitution] and of the Independence of the United States of America.

New York City has the nation's largest public school system, with more than 1 million students enrolled in its 1,200 schools and programs.

"This should be a wake-up call for Christians across this nation," Thompson said of the decision.

Thompson noted Judge Chester J. Straub issued a lengthy, 46-page dissent. Earlier this week, Straub was the lone dissenter against his court's decision to rule unconstitutional the federal law banning partial-birth abortion.

Straub said in his opinion Thursday, "It is my view that the policy of the New York City Department of Education to arrange for the children to celebrate the holiday season in schools through the use of displays and activities that include religious symbols of the Jewish holiday of Chanukah and the Muslim commemoration of Ramadan, but starkly exclude any religious symbols of the Christian holiday of Christmas, fails under the [Constitution], both on its face and as applied."

For the 'Jewish' religions - under the Old Testament also:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, {What part of that Scripture did they not understand?

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. {Breaking the Old Covenant

Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing [New Covenant] which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour,

1Jo 2:27 ye need not that any man teach you

What part of those words from God Himself - do the 'Jewish' religions' leaders not understand?

The Word of God has the Authority. The leaders do not. Even their own Torah has those same Old Testament Scriptures.

Jer 16:14 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be said, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;

Jer 16:15 But, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.

Eze 37:12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

As for Islam - - - their teachings thoroughly Violate the U.S. Constitution on a level that any child can understand. [And they know it]

Refering to the First Amendment, Straub concluded, "I find it clear that the current policy and displays violate the Establishment Clause insofar as a reasonable student observer would perceive a message of endorsement of Judaism and Islam and a reasonable parent observer would perceive a message that Judaism and Islam are favored and that Christianity is disfavored."

The New York City schools' policy states that the display of "secular holiday symbol decorations is permitted" and lists as examples the menorah and the star and crescent.

But the policy specifically excludes the display of the Christian Nativity scene.

The city argues the menorah and star and crescent are permissible symbols because they are "secular," {tell that one to CAIR] whereas the Nativity scene must be excluded because it is "purely religious."

Article. VII of the U.S. Constitution

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven {that year signifies only one possible Lord for this Constitution] and of the Independence of the United States of America.

The majority, in fact, said the city's argument was fallacious, stating that the policy "mischaracterizes" these symbols, but still upheld the ban on the Christian Nativity.

The court wrote, "No reasonable objective observer would perceive from the totality of the circumstances in this case that the purpose of the challenged display policy was, in fact, to communicate to city schoolchildren any official endorsement of Judaism and Islam or any dismissal of Christianity."

Islam:

033.061 They {non-Muslims] shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy.

And what are the "reasonable objective observations" for that teaching? - from those same judges - who clearly violated the U.S. Constitution?

What exactly, do they think of that teaching that comes straight from the mouth of 'allah'? Let them give their "reasonable objective" answer!

There are NO Christian Scriptures [the Only Lord that is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution] that preach such viciousness between humans! Not one! If so - present them. [There aren't any] The angels - NOT HUMANS - carry out the punishment of severing the wicked from among the just

The majority opinion concluded the "actual and perceived purpose of the holiday display policy was to use holiday celebrations to encourage respect for the city's diverse cultural traditions."

Then let those judges be held responsible for any blood that is spilled by any Muslim who is only carrying out what his Koran told him to - in their city.

009.005 fight and slay the Pagans ''''wherever'''' ye find them [throughout the earth} 004.100, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.

What law school did those judges go to? Who were their professors?

Straub argued the Nativity scene "depicts a historical event and thus, has some non-religious aspects to it." {That's a crock! and so are the Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent

Do we please men? or Logic? The U.S. Constitution condemns BOTH Islam AND those judges. And the Old Testament condemns the so-called self-proclaiming 'Jewish' religions - clearly!

The New Testament preaches Peace - a fact that no man can deny.

Mic 6:3 O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against Me. {Go ahead! Present the New Scriptures that He said He would give - that preach violence. [There aren't any]

He contended the city's "action in defining a menorah and star and crescent as secular, and a cr?e as 'purely religious,' is impermissible insofar as it takes positions on divisive religious issues."

Robert Muise, Thomas More's attorney handling the case, called it a "shocking decision" that should outrage Christians.

It should OUTRAGE every decent American Judge! The facts are simple. But the truth is hard - when it comes to pleasing men - or pure Logic! and the decisions made here will plant that which we all - will surely reap!

And the judges will be responsible for the outcome! whether good or bad.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt [cannot have it both ways]: the tree is known by his fruit.

"We strongly believe that the majority decision is fundamentally flawed, as pointed out by the dissent, and we intend to take this fight to the next level," he said. "This battle is far from over." Let those who are sickened at the thought of beheadings, rape and crucifixions pray they do. And let everyone speak the Truth that the God of the Old Testament said He would give a New Testament. In that he saith, "A new covenant", he hath made the first old.

Muise, said he will ask the full 2nd Circuit to hear the case, and, failing that, will appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Muise said, according to the Associated Press, the new Supreme Court justices were "just waiting for cases like this to come before them to hopefully straighten out the mess the courts have created."

We shall see