Mar 12
Judge in Klouda case rules on Church-State issue . . .
Topic: Humor, News, SWBTS| Written by: Benjamin Cole|
United States District Judge John McBryde ruled Monday in favor of a city ordinance banning the ritual sacrifice of animals. The Dallas Morning News is carrying the story.
Is anybody else wondering if Jose Merced, the Santeria priest who lost the case, went to court assured that his “ecclesiastic opinion” about slaughtering animals provided him with constitutional protection from interference by the government when he wanted to perform the ritual. I will find it interesting if the court forbids Jose Merced to cut the head off a chicken, but allows Defendant Patterson to do the same to Sheri Klouda.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Are you really serious? Wow! this is the epitome of comapring apples to oranges. That is unless you want ALL of the seperation of church and state gone.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Brother Ben,
If you care to allow me one comment, I want to call your attention to one flaw in your legal theory. That flaw is in the story itself about Judge McBryde’s ruling. While he banned it within the city limits he certainly did not ban it outside the city limits. The story says; but that Merced could do the rituals elsewhere. If this is what you are banking on as precedence, you may need to look elsewhere. According to your precedence setting case, Dr. Patterson cannot move Dr. Klouda to another position maintaining the same pay and benefits at SWBTS, but may do it if he were at another school.
As we say here in NC–”that blabber doesn’t hold water”.
Blessings,
Tim
March 12th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Blackhawk,
Although you have a penchant for hatred of all things Ben Cole, you failed to notice that he listed this post under ‘humor’. Does that not give you a hint that he is not necessarily equating the two cases, but merely pointing out similarities. Apples and oranges aren’t the same, but they have some similarities.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:23 am
blackhaw, does that include the Wiccans?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Does what include the wiccans? It seems like they live under the same constitution as we do. I do not know the point you are trying to make.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Robert L. Thompson,
Well it is good humor. And I do not necesarily have a hatred of all things Cole. It is just that everything he posts is about Patterson and company. He was hurt by Patterson and wants revenge. When Cole gets off this kick maybe I will agree with him about something.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:47 am
i don’t hate my dog, but when he wanders out from my yard, a tongue lashing and spanking ensue. maybe it’s not that he wants revenge, but that he has seen first hand pp’s hand in other people’s cookie jar (where it doesn’t belong) and this is his way of helping bring pp back in line
March 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Robert L. Thompson,
I see it as more than that. Just look at his contribution here on this site. It is all about Patterson and co.. We might have to agree to disagree on this.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Can the Wiccans can do what they want as a ‘church’ or as individuals if they say it is a ‘religious’ belief?
March 12th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“Can the Wiccans can do what they want as a ‘church’ or as individuals if they say it is a ‘religious’ belief?”
It matters what it is. That is what BSC did not think about. Or he did but thought it good humor to neglect.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
it’s all about patterson because patterson is all over the sbc, more so than his elected position allows; and its ok to agree to disagree
March 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Tim Rogers, bless your heart:
I am busy making hospital visits to the good people of Emmanuel Baptist Church. I can not pass, however, the opportunity to comment on your newfound fondness for legal analysis.
Listening to you parse case law is like watching a ground hog in the clutches of an eagle assuming that he can fly.
BSC
March 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I’m going to want to read that case. It sounds like the opposite ruling from City of Hialeah v Lukumi Babalu Aye.