Attempted intimidation

[Bern]

"Uniquely and proudly the American heirs of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Madison" ??? Really ???  I wonder what those gentlemen would think of you, Paul, Strife and a few other liberal pukes welcoming the ACLU with open arms, denying God, criticizing our President and wanting to cut and run in the Middle East ???  I think those American heros would line you up in front of a firing squad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll answer this even though I know you're bringing this up to divert from the real issue of that teacher proselytizing and then lying about it.

Your statement show your lack of understanding and knowledge of what our country stands for.

Criticizing the President is as American as apple pie. Our founders had no problem criticizing each other and the President when they felt like it. They specifically stated they wanted a President, not a King.

President Teddy Roosevelt said that the President should be criticized. He stated it rather well -

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Your words mean that "line you up in front of a firing squad" applies to President Roosevelt.

You wrote that criticizing the President is one of the things one should be lined up for and shot. It is obvious from President Roosevelt's statement that you are base, servile and your manner is morally treasonous.

[Stixx3969]

Is this four-month long discussion finally at an end? Most of the discussion has been over an inane attempt to defend the indefensible conduct of a proselytizing zealot who was trying to shove his religious beliefs down the throats of other people's kids, uninvited. There have been some hot tempers on both sides, but by far the vast majority of the stupid and childish attacks have come from the side trying to defend the teacher. Their main line of attack, when it was obvious even to them that Paszkiewicz's conduct was indefensible, was to try to shift the discussion onto something else --- anything else, as long as they thought it shifted the focus. Because what these zealous fundies don't realize is that they're really trying to convince themselves, and to shield themselves from the world as it actually is. They can't live in a world of uncertainty, but the world is uncertain is many ways --- so they do what they think they have to do and make up a world that doesn't exist, a world where every moral choice is absolutely black and white and everything that doesn't fit into the little desktop mold they've made of the world is to be ignored and forgotten. "Please, please," they beg, "you must see things our way, you must!" because if anyone doesn't see it their way, they just might get a glimpse of the truth, and they don't want it.

Civilization has never advanced along the lines of these know-nothings, and it never will. Every age has seen its share of small-minded people, people without curiosity and without the humility and sense of wonder to realize that human beings came into the world knowing only a tiny part of the reality of all things, and that we learn more about reality by hard work, a little piece at a time --- not by declaring against all the evidence that the whole truth is written down in a collection of ancient writings that must never be questioned. We do not learn about reality by making up and closing our minds about it without even looking at the evidence all around us and thinking long and hard about what the evidence means. Every age has had its witch burners, its book burners and those who persecuted anyone who had an idea or acted in a way that threatened their comfort zone. The small-minded bigots who have posted in defense of their fellow small-minded bigot are no different. Invariably, their effort turns to hypocrisy and intellectual and moral dishonesty, as it has here. It's just the same thing in this place on a new day.

How fitting it is that this so-called "patriot" has nothing better and nothing more to say than a childish, four-word "gotcha" that a second-grader might utter on a school playground. In the end, that is all Paszkiewicz's defenders have to say.

For the rest of us, I hope we have learned something. I hope we have learned that citizenship means acting in defense of our country and its principles, both legal and ethical. I hope we have learned the value of taking a stand against wrongdoing when a person sees wrongdoing. This may have been a difficult time for Matthew LaClair and his family, but he and they will know all their lives that they did the right thing, something no other student was willing and able to do in the fifteen years that this abusive teacher has been at Kearny High. Many of Matthew's classmates will begin to realize this as they grow older. I hope they will have the courage and integrity to reach out to him and acknowledge their realization that he did the right thing while they remained silent, and that in a very real sense, although they did not realize it or would not admit it at the time, he spoke for them.

For the Kearny community, I hope this will be a lesson that will draw the community together by lifting it up to a higher moral ground. That remains to be seen. The fact that Paszkiewicz has been allowed to continue teaching without even being suspended is troubling. The obligation to ensure that our country's most fundamental law and the educational system are taken seriously rests with the Board of Education and the administrators throughout the Kearny school system. I hope they will rise to the challenge, but so far I see no evidence that they will.

So what do we do next?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very well said indeed! It reminds me of a great movie I watched last night "Inherit the Wind".

[Guest Guest]

"Uniquely and proudly the American heirs of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Madison" ??? Really ???  I wonder what those gentlemen would think of you, Paul, Strife and a few other liberal pukes welcoming the ACLU with open arms, denying God, criticizing our President and wanting to cut and run in the Middle East ???  I think those American heros would line you up in front of a firing squad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IF you weren't the complete and total A** that you are you would understand that religious freedom, one of the pronciples America was founded on that you so completely misunderstand, also gives one the freedom to NOT believe.

I believe YOU are an insult to every true patriot in history.

[Strife767]

If Quality Control is what you say your issue is, then for many of us it has more than been resolved.

He flatly lied about his actions (don't forget that) and suffered zero consequences other than a possible slap-on-the-wrist 'don't do it again' that doesn't really accomplish anything, considering the fact that Paszkiewicz has made public statements where he claims to have done nothing wrong, and as far as we all know, that continues to be his stance.

This is not a resolution. Anyone who thinks such a lack of action is a resolution is showing a strong, clear bias.

You, on you and your son,  have brought to light that this person did speak of religion in class.

One is allowed to speak of religion in class. A public school teacher is not allowed to endorse any religion in class, and that is what was brought to light. Do not attempt to trivialize Paszkiewicz's words--your bias is showing again a bit.

Granted everyone knows it.  For many of us this issue has been addressed

I wonder if a Muslim public school teacher telling his Christian students that they are doomed to suffer for eternity after death receiving the same 'adequate resolution' that you claim Paszkiewicz received would satisfy you...

and unless you are still taping, there has been no new remarks from him that have made it public.

If there are more recordings, it would be like throwing a toothpick on an inferno. The existing recordings are more than damning enough.

Both his name and yours are throw through the mud here and it doesn't have to be that way.  It does still sound like you want his head on a platter though? It is the ongoing circle of these web pages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He, and many others, want justice. Allowing Paszkiewicz's shameless transgressions (not to mention his dishonesty about them) to be treated so leniently is not justice, not to mention the lack of a public apology or the correction of his erroneous anti-science statements. The things Matthew and Paul have requested are far from interpretable as "want[ing] his head on a platter." If you disagree, how about an example of something either of them has said they wanted that you would describe that way?

[Strife767]

How pathetic is this site getting. Paul says something. Strife agrees with it saying how smart Paul is.  Strife comments and then Paul responds. Leigh might chime in between posts agreeing with both of them and saying "good point" and then the circle begins again over and over and over.

You forgot the part where all kinds of unregistered posters come in and lie about the issue, personally attack any or all of the above people you mentioned, etc.

Three hundred sixty five days a year.

The issue hasn't even existed that long, doofus.

Years from now it will continue.

Just as certain as predictions of the second coming, I'm sure.

They claim it’s their duty to reply to the authoritarians. But in most of these topics they themselves are the authors.

Oh, really? Let's check that, shall we? As of this writing, these are the authors of the 40 topics on the first page (I may have more topics per page than others--don't remember if I changed the option to make it greater or not here, but I usually do), 20 (I tried to be lenient--for example, I didn't count "eternal punishment unjust?" by Bryan because that was directly 'inspired' by the issue, but not about the issue itself) are in some way about the KHS issue. Out of those 20, only six were started by Paul or me (none were started by any other 'supporters' of Paul). I don't know where you learned math, but 6 out of 20 is not "most" in any textbook I've ever read. You might want to check yourself before you make statements like that in the future.

[Strife767]

"Uniquely and proudly the American heirs of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Madison" ??? Really ???

Yes, really.

I wonder what those gentlemen would think of you, Paul, Strife

I think they'd be happy to see such staunch defenders of the "wall of separation" they helped create centuries ago.

and a few other liberal pukes welcoming the ACLU with open arms, denying God, criticizing our President and wanting to cut and run in the Middle East ???  I think those American heros would line you up in front of a firing squad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that you think that proves exactly just how ignorant you are of your own founding fathers. Most of them weren't even Christians, but Deists. For example, Jefferson himself was so annoyed by all of the supernatural nonsense in the Bible that he wrote his own Bible with all of it taken out, leaving in only the philosophy of the character Jesus which he was a fan of.

[an American in Texas]

Yes, really.

I think they'd be happy to see such staunch defenders of the "wall of separation" they helped create centuries ago.

The fact that you think that proves exactly just how ignorant you are of your own founding fathers. Most of them weren't even Christians, but Deists. For example, Jefferson himself was so annoyed by all of the supernatural nonsense in the Bible that he wrote his own Bible with all of it taken out, leaving in only the philosophy of the character Jesus which he was a fan of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They'd be happy to see that some of us, at least, "get it." The Constitution's framers worked hard to enshrine the principle of freedom of religion in our country's highest Law.

Whether they were, or were not, Christians themselves is really beside the point. It is true that some were overtly deists. Others, for example John Adams, were devout Christians. But regardless of their personal religious beliefs, they did agree that the new government should be separate from, and distinct from, religious observance. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the purpose of the first amendment is to guarantee that the rights of religious minorities would always be protected from any infringement by the majority. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, and Washington's letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island, make that very clear.

What many Americans misunderstand is the degree to which freedom OF and FROM religion has fostered a vibrant and dynamic church here in America. That's true for the minority religions, but also and most strikingly for the Christian community.

So, be careful what you wish for, Dominionists. It's sad to think that the very thing you want most ardently, the enshrinement of Christianity in both law and custom, is the thing most likely to kill the church altogether. One need only look to Europe to see that a state-sanctioned church is the one most empty of congregants.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Guest Paul]

WOW !!!!  Spoken like a true LaClair. They couldn't have said it better if they wrote this themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, it was superbly written. Obviously you have no rebuttal.

[Guest Guest]

You forgot the part where all kinds of unregistered posters come in and lie about the issue, personally attack any or all of the above people you mentioned, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again you call them lies because they do not conform to the argument that Paul has set up. That does't in the least sense make it a lie.

The issue hasn't even existed that long, doofus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doesn't amaze anyone here what little lack of class you really do have.

You shout to the highest heaven that everyone here here shouldn't name call and you are the biggest violator of that. You have such little self control.

Just as certain as predictions of the second coming, I'm sure.

Oh, really? Let's check that, shall we? As of this writing, these are the authors of the 40 topics on the first page (I may have more topics per page than others--don't remember if I changed the option to make it greater or not here, but I usually do), 20 (I tried to be lenient--for example, I didn't count "eternal punishment unjust?" by Bryan because that was directly 'inspired' by the issue, but not about the issue itself) are in some way about the KHS issue. Out of those 20, only six were started by Paul or me (none were started by any other 'supporters' of Paul). I don't know where you learned math, but 6 out of 20 is not "most" in any textbook I've ever read. You might want to check yourself before you make statements like that in the future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess I have to be clearer for you to understand. I was referring to the topic started on this topic, not all the topic of this town. And the fact that you have to go thru all the posts to figure that out means you definitely have too much time on your hands.

[Strife767]

They'd be happy to see that some of us, at least, "get it."  The Constitution's framers worked hard to enshrine the principle of freedom of religion in our country's highest Law.

Whether they were, or were not, Christians themselves is really beside the point.

Well, beside the separation point, yes. But I put that in specifically to respond to him suggesting that the founding fathers would have a problem with atheism ("denying God") etc.

[Strife767]

Again you call them lies because they do not conform to the argument that Paul has set up.  That does't in the least sense make it a lie.

I call them lies because they're lies.

How about the latest one where idiots are claiming that Matthew tried to get a security guard fired? There's a perfect and recent example. And it's a LIE by unregistered posters. Fool.

I doesn't amaze anyone here what little lack of class you really do have.

You shout to the highest heaven that everyone here here shouldn't name call and you are the biggest violator of that.

LOL

So calling someone who lies a liar is name-calling? Here in reality, we call that a true statement. You know, as opposed to a lie?

You have such little self control.

I guess I have to be clearer for you to understand. I was referring to the topic started on this topic, not all the topic of this town.  And the fact that you have to go thru all the posts

Uh, skimming the post titles was all I needed to do, and that took me all of 30-45 seconds.

to figure that out means you definitely have too much time on your hands.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about the fact that you wrote this whole post just to attack me and lie yourself (by claiming that I'm fallaciously calling lies where I see them)? I wouldn't talk, hotshot.

[Guest Paul]

Again you call them lies because they do not conform to the argument that Paul has set up.  That does't in the least sense make it a lie.

I doesn't amaze anyone here what little lack of class you really do have.

You shout to the highest heaven that everyone here here shouldn't name call and you are the biggest violator of that. You have such little self control.

I guess I have to be clearer for you to understand. I was referring to the topic started on this topic, not all the topic of this town.  And the fact that you have to go thru all the posts to figure that out means you definitely have too much time on your hands.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspect Strife called them lies because they have no basis in fact (which they don't), and are being stated without any apparent regard for the truth. Tell me, do you people really not see the intellectual shell game you play?

[Guest Paul]

I'll answer this even though I know you're bringing this up to divert from the real issue of that teacher proselytizing and then lying about it.

Your statement show your lack of understanding and knowledge of what our country stands for.

Criticizing the President is as American as apple pie. Our founders had no problem criticizing each other and the President when they felt like it. They specifically stated they wanted a President, not a King.

President Teddy Roosevelt said that the President should be criticized. He stated it rather well -

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Your words mean that "line you up in front of a firing squad" applies to President Roosevelt.

You wrote that criticizing the President is one of the things one should be lined up for and shot. It is obvious from President Roosevelt's statement that you are base, servile and your manner is morally treasonous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good post, but you can't really talk to people like so-called "Patriot." He is an authoritarian thinker. These people decide what they wish to believe, and then spend their lives declaring it true regardless of the facts.

Some self-described Christians put it this way: "God said it, I believe it, end of story." What they're really saying, probably without knowing it, is: "I believe God said, and for me that's the end of the story." In a way they don't begin to see, they're right: For them it is the end of the story because they stop collecting information and not only stop thinking, but refuse to entertain any idea that would call their belief into question.

A grand irony in that way of thinking is that there's nothing worshipful about it; the best one can say is that the person who thinks that way worships his own opinion, because when you look at it, that is what must remain constant and unmoving at any and all costs. So-called "Patriot" just extends that to pretty much everything he or she believes. It's a way of thinking, and it's part of an authoritarian personality. And what's really scary is that these people vote. That's why education and culture matter so much.

[Guest Patriot]

Good post, but you can't really talk to people like so-called "Patriot." He is an authoritarian thinker. These people decide what they wish to believe, and then spend their lives declaring it true regardless of the facts.

Some self-described Christians put it this way: "God said it, I believe it, end of story." What they're really saying, probably without knowing it, is: "I believe God said, and for me that's the end of the story." In a way they don't begin to see, they're right: For them it is the end of the story because they stop collecting information and not only stop thinking, but refuse to entertain any idea that would call their belief into question.

A grand irony in that way of thinking is that there's nothing worshipful about it; the best one can say is that the person who thinks that way worships his own opinion, because when you look at it, that is what must remain constant and unmoving at any and all costs. So-called "Patriot" just extends that to pretty much everything he or she believes. It's a way of thinking, and it's part of an authoritarian personality. And what's really scary is that these people vote. That's why education and culture matter so much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now this is a funny post. Here's a guy sitting in his bedroom, furiously typing away on his keyboard, convinced he has everyone disected and defined. His pompousness is so extreme there's a certain humor to it (what's really scary is that these people vote). I would guess "these people" means republicans or "non Kool-aid drinkers". Well Paul, just keep your pompous ass in front of the keyboard, keep typing away and I'll keep getting a good laugh.

[Guest Guest]

Now this is a funny post. Here's a guy sitting in his bedroom, furiously typing away on his keyboard, convinced he has everyone disected and defined.  His pompousness is so extreme there's a certain humor to it (what's really scary is that these people vote). I would guess "these people" means republicans or "non Kool-aid drinkers".  Well Paul, just keep your  pompous ass in front of the keyboard, keep typing away and I'll keep getting a good laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I want to see how much you laugh when that loser teacher ends up costing his town a ton of money. Enjoy your tax increase as a result, anyone in Kearny who defends Pastor P. I'll call it the "D**bA** tax".

[Guest Paul]

Now this is a funny post. Here's a guy sitting in his bedroom, furiously typing away on his keyboard, convinced he has everyone disected and defined.  His pompousness is so extreme there's a certain humor to it (what's really scary is that these people vote). I would guess "these people" means republicans or "non Kool-aid drinkers".  Well Paul, just keep your  pompous ass in front of the keyboard, keep typing away and I'll keep getting a good laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not everyone Patriot, but certainly you. You're not hard to figure out.

[Guest Paul]

Now this is a funny post. Here's a guy sitting in his bedroom, furiously typing away on his keyboard, convinced he has everyone disected and defined.  His pompousness is so extreme there's a certain humor to it (what's really scary is that these people vote). I would guess "these people" means republicans or "non Kool-aid drinkers".  Well Paul, just keep your  pompous ass in front of the keyboard, keep typing away and I'll keep getting a good laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By the way, you don't know where I keep my computer. And what makes you think I'm posting this from home?

Thanks to you, we now know where you have your computer. You want to talk about a good laugh --- the image of so-called "Patriot" sitting in his bedroom typing and . . . well, let's not go there. Now there's an image for you. No wonder his comments are so brief and so ridiculous. He's distracted.

[Guest Guest]

Now this is a funny post. Here's a guy sitting in his bedroom, furiously typing away on his keyboard, convinced he has everyone disected and defined.  His pompousness is so extreme there's a certain humor to it (what's really scary is that these people vote). I would guess "these people" means republicans or "non Kool-aid drinkers".  Well Paul, just keep your  pompous ass in front of the keyboard, keep typing away and I'll keep getting a good laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep "Patriot" it is scary that folks like you vote - people who don't investigate the fact or show any critical thinking skills what-so-ever. The extent of your debating skills is sophomoric name-calling. Some of us are trying to prevent lunatics from teaching in the classroom. And if you don't want to hear from us anymore don't troll the posts on KOTW. Oh, and by the way, the kool-aid drinkers were the followers at Jonestown - followers of a lunatic, people like YOU, not the LaClairs.

[Guest Guest]

Now this is a funny post. Here's a guy sitting in his bedroom, furiously typing away on his keyboard, convinced he has everyone disected and defined.  His pompousness is so extreme there's a certain humor to it (what's really scary is that these people vote). I would guess "these people" means republicans or "non Kool-aid drinkers".  Well Paul, just keep your  pompous ass in front of the keyboard, keep typing away and I'll keep getting a good laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep "Patriot" it is scary that folks like you vote - people who don't investigate the facts or show any critical thinking skills what-so-ever. The extent of your debating skills is sophomoric name-calling. Some of us are trying to prevent lunatics from teaching in the classroom. And if you don't want to hear from us anymore don't troll the posts on KOTW.

[Bryan]

Bryan "metaphysics at some level" hardly equates to the blatant preaching of fundamentalist Christian doctrine in a classroom.

Where did I equate them, other than perhaps in your imagination?

It's you who misunderstands the relationship between "the democratic process", by which I infer you mean "rule of the majority",

You infer incorrectly, for that isn't what I meant at all.

The Constitution places the Congress as the legislative body (not the courts) and Congress has among its powers a check on the courts: Congress is entitled to set limits on the reach of the court.

I don't like it when the court takes to itself legislative powers contrary to the limits of its constitutional role.

and the Constitution.  You don't like it that judges can overrule legislators (or school board members) who trample on the rights of minorities.  Too bad; that's the way our country is set up.

The judiciary has no powers granted to it in our Constitution specific to protection of minorities, or even the preservation of rights, per se.

And you seem blissfully unaware of the congressional check on the judiciary. How did that happen, with all the books you read?

And at the moment that's no longer true, we cease to be Americans and become the subjects of a theocracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So the moment the Congress uses its constitutional powers to check the judiciary we've become the subjects of a theocracy (see sixth one down)?

Checks on the Judiciary

* Senate approves federal judges

* Impeachment power (House)

* Trial of impeachments (Senate)

* Power to initiate constitutional amendments

* Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court

* Power to set jurisdiction of courts

* Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html

(from Article 3)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Though I suppose the SCOTUS could alway interpret the above to make themselves the sole rulers of the United States.

[Guest Guest]

Where did I equate them, other than perhaps in your imagination?

You infer incorrectly, for that isn't what I meant at all.

The Constitution places the Congress as the legislative body (not the courts) and Congress has among its powers a check on the courts:  Congress is entitled to set limits on the reach of the court.

I don't like it when the court takes to itself legislative powers contrary to the limits of its constitutional role.

The judiciary has no powers granted to it in our Constitution specific to protection of minorities, or even the preservation of rights, per se.

And you seem blissfully unaware of the congressional check on the judiciary.  How did that happen, with all the books you read? 

So the moment the Congress uses its constitutional powers to check the judiciary we've become the subjects of a theocracy (see sixth one down)?

Checks on the Judiciary

    * Senate approves federal judges

    * Impeachment power (House)

    * Trial of impeachments (Senate)

    * Power to initiate constitutional amendments

    * Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court

    * Power to set jurisdiction of courts

    * Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html

(from Article 3)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Though I suppose the SCOTUS could alway interpret the above to make themselves the sole rulers of the United States. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because Congress has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts doesn't mean they wouldn't destroy the very essence of democracy and religious liberty if they selectively "set the jurisdiction" of the courts to prevent the courts from enforcing the First Amendment. That is not what the Framers had in mind, any more than if the Supreme Court declared itself the nation's sole law-makers and executors.

Talk about seeing only what you want to see! This "Bryan" guy is near delusional.

[Bryan]

Just because Congress has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts doesn't mean they wouldn't destroy the very essence of democracy and religious liberty if they selectively "set the jurisdiction" of the courts to prevent the courts from enforcing the First Amendment.

Who argued that the legislature should keep the courts from "enforcing" the First Amendment?

That is not what the Framers had in mind, any more than if the Supreme Court declared itself the nation's sole law-makers and executors.

Perhaps we agree on that point. What do you think the Framers intended with that check on the judiciary?

Talk about seeing only what you want to see!

A brilliantly ironic segue to your next comment ...

This "Bryan" guy is near delusional.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like "Guest" had his own delusion about what I was arguing, based on his seeing what he wanted to see.