Ignorant Educators?

According to this, the request was made by a former Alderwoman. Her whole name sounds like a Russian Jewish name. Some of them are atheists, but I thought this guy said it was a Muslim.

Oh, I listened to it again. That was another case.

I wonder how this case turned out.

Seems she's an acorn type of nut job.

This is how it turned out. McGrath got away with a $100 fine, and that was only because he was considered to be loitering at the bake sale while he awaited Vito's departure from the polls.

It was okay that he intimidated the guy to go to vote as long as he didn't intimidate him to vote for anyone in particular. That's disgusting. This is our justice system at work.

Yes, it is disgusting, Sue.

and disturbing...

Yes, and I don't think, in this case, it had a lot to do with her own religious or non-religious beliefs. The building where this guy lives/lived in the Westville area of New Haven is not typical of the area, although it has changed a lot over the years and is more interracial now. It always had been mostly a Jewish area with a high concentration of Haddasic Jews. Someone like Ina Silverman is not new to that area. She's most likely lived there for most of her life. Liebermann is from Westville. He also lived there most of his life, though I think he moved out a couple of years ago. People who live in that area and have for so many years are not so sensitive to religious people and affectations because they're surrounded by them or are very religious themselves.

There is something more to this than just suddenly deciding she wants to have the year of our Lord taken out of the diploma for some Constitutional reason. From the way she got her votes in that election, it doesn't seem to me she's all that concerned with the Law. I can think of a couple of things that could be the case right off the top. One is that she's looking to impress some elitist academic types who live in the posh, surrounding towns for political or social reasons, and another is that she had it in for someone who is religious that she doesn't like and she has nothing better to do with her time than make a name for herself and be vindictive. I'm going to find out more about her if I can.

Oh my God, and I mean the Christian one, if she's going to be so precise. You're just not going to believe this. I just knew it couldn't be some sudden decision she made to pursue this last year because of what I said above and where she lives, but I never in a million years would have suspected this.

This is what she said 33 years ago when she first tried to remove the phrase, in the year of Our Lord. “I said this was a Christian-designated way of telling time and it wasn’t appropriate on a government document from the public school." Guess we'd better not be using A.D anymore.

I find her logic kinda slippery . . .

“We have ‘God’ on our money and on lots of government documents. The issue is invoking a specific deity. Once you do that, you disenfranchise a certain part of the population and it violates separation of church and state,” she said.

The phrase "In the year of our Lord" also appears on some of those Documents . . . and, obviously, not everyone believes in God, so, is she wanting to "disenfranchise" atheists?


. . .That whole E pluribus unum thing disenfranchises me, cause I don't speak Spanish . . Roman numerals seems kinda ethnocentric . . and green is not my favorite color . . ; )

She is obviously a Jew who does not wish to have her Yahweh associated with Jesus in any way. I just can't believe it.

That's a good question, John. It doesn't seem as though anyone asked her that, but it would be interesting to see how she answers it, for sure.

The Exec Director of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State said, “It was a phrase that was used 200 years ago. But now we don’t use that phrase. It’s very arcane. It now refers much more clearly to a kind of Christian viewpoint." It would even be a better question for him.

And certainly, just because that's what she said it's about and it really doesn't make any sense, there's still a possibility that there's something else that prompted this.

If she were really so concerned about the separation of church and state idea or the deletion of an idea of a Christian God, would she have waited 33 years until her daughter's graduation to find out that it was still on the diploma?

I wondered about that too, Sue. I wonder what the real trigger was.

Yeah, as far as she’s concerned, suddenly pulling this issue out of the mothballs last year after so long has to mean that there’s a lot more to her personal motivation than what she’s telling us.

If you look at the US Constitution here on page 16, you’ll see that “the seventeenth day of September in the Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven” is in Article Vll.

According to the separationists, the Constitution itself is unconstitutional.

As far as the rhetoric from all the rest in their acceptance of her ridiculous assertion, this wall of separation nonsense from these humanists (Why does that word continuously free associate in my head with cockroaches every time I hear it?) is nothing but. They chip away at it so much that they contradict themselves. So let’s see if we can get this straight. The non-Christian Founding Fathers who were really Deists used the phrase in the year of our Lord because they were referring to a Christian God. (well...this week, anyway)

OR
We might just be honest, truthful, sincere, genuine, wholesome (all those things cockroaches cannot be) and use something like this to point out the obvious proof that it has nothing to do with them wanting to uphold the Law and everything to do with their own agenda.

In the year of our Lord, how could anyone living in the United States complain about this, it is both disgusting and disturbing, still have no answer as to why those type of people want to live in this country, they hate every thing it stands for.