In a House committee hearing Tuesday, Billington presented a bill that would force plaintiffs advocating for the separation of church and state — those suing to stop the public display of crosses on government property, or seeking to block prayer in public schools — to disclose their real names. No more Jane Doe or Jane Roe. In these cases, and only these cases, Billington would require the legal system to out the person suing.
Currently, when it comes to identification, a judge can balance the interests of the public against the interests of the people filing suit. But Billington seems to believe that a new law is necessary to make sure anyone who doesn't share his religious beliefs has no shot at anonymity. "Except if the party in interest is a minor, in any action involving the separation of church and state, such action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest," his bill states.
21 comments
public display of crosses on government property, ... prayer in public schools
Well then, I will propose a bill that would force those defending crosses on government property and prayer in public schools to 1) prove that Jesus of Nazareth was truly God and 2) prove the existence of God as part of their arguments. The bill would further require that God appear before the court and speak on his own behalf.
Okay. Have those who file countersuit do so in only the names 'Jehovah' or 'Jesus Christ': and like those who file the initial suit must appear in court as physically as they do.
We'll then see how connected church is to state.
Seems that Jefferson & co. were way ahead of you lot when they drew up that which is the very basis of your country: and ensures your particular religion's right to exist .
So will you be insisting that Islam & the Church of $cientology pay it's taxes, Hardly Payingyours...?! [/IRS]
You've effectively killed those people. They will now receive constant threatening calls, their pets will be killed, their cars will be grafftied, and their houses might be set fire to.
But that's okay. They're filthy atheists who are going to go to Hell anyway. Why should their earthly lives be hellish as well?
Literally the only purpose of that bill is to open people up to personal attack, and the trigger for the attack is challenging a breach of the constitution. It punishes those attempting to work within the law to uphold it. A country that touts "law and order" should damn well despise such a duplicitous pile of garbage.
Why stop at insisting they use their real names? Why not make a registry of heathens. Then you can go to their houses to harass them. Or even better, make them all wear a big letter "H" on their clothes, so they can be identified in public by "good"
The problem with freedom of religion is that for some people, being able to coerce heathens into converting without being subject to the same in return *is* a large part of their religion. So they *have* to try these kinds of end runs around other people's religious freedoms. It's annoying as hell, but no less illegal.
Hardy Billington
Another resident of the Alternative Facts World where (for starters)
- Trump's inauguration crowd was the biggest ever
- all the US Founding Fathers were Bible literalist fundies who created a nation where religious freedom is the freedom to self-choose which Christian congregation to belong to
- Obama is a black Muslim making his presidency illegitimate, since only white Christians can be president
- ALL people are born cisgender and heterosexual; some just choose the lifestyle of sexually sticking to same-sex partners or/and being transgender
Right, we know you're only doing this to make those people public targets. I'm sure you'd prefer to burn them @ the stake, but we don't do that, this Millennium.
This should be taken for granted in your First Amendment.
No need for any to stand personally. It's Constitutionally illegal.
Petitions even are to alert the UCLA of rights violations, but not needed.
Sure, and those suing to stop the public display of other religious artifacts on government property, or seeking to block Satanic, Muslim, FMG prayer in public schools, also have to disclose their real names, right?
What interest is it of the public that someone wants the Constitution respected? I'd say it's those who want to spit and stamp on the Constitution; THEY are the ones who should be outed...
The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they DID want a WALL of separation between the church and the state, as they could see the havoc that religion had wrecked on The Old Country. Why do you hate the Founding Fathers, Hardy-Harr-Harr?
Hmm...and why would he want this, pray tell? I'm sure it's for a perfectly innocent reason, and NOT because he wants people who threaten their stranglehold on our government to be vulnerable to bullying, stalking, threats and murder by fanatical Christians in order to intimidate them. No, a kind and loving lamb of God would never want that.
" to disclose their real names. No more Jane Doe or Jane Roe. In these cases, and only these cases, Billington would require the legal system to out the person suing."
So we don't have to track them down on the internet before we lynch them.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
